Sitting of 8 June 1943

Preamble
[Mr. SPEARKER in the Chair]

ALLIED FORCES (MESSAGE FROM GENERAL EISENHOWER)
MR. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have received the following message by wireless from General Eisenhower, Allied Headquarters, North Africa:
"To the Speaker of the House of Commons:
I have received with pride the text of the Motion passed by the House of Commons on 18th May. I ask that you will convey to the Members of the House of Commons the thanks of all ranks of the Allied Forces under my Command for this generous appreciation of their services. Strengthened by your encouraging message, we look forward with increasing confidence to a future of still greater effort and achievement until the complete and final destruction of the Axis forces throughout the world has been attained.
(Signed) Eisenhower."
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  NORTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL
  Ordered, That, in the case of the Northampton Corporation Bill, Standing Orders 92 and 231 be suspended and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS
  Marriages Provisional Order Bill.
  Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bucks Water Board) Bill.
  Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Chiltern Hills Spring Water) Bill.
  Read the Third time, and passed.
  Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Banbury Water) Bill.
  Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Harrogate) Bill.
  Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Wetherby District Water) Bill.
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time upon the next Sitting Day.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  FUEL AND POWER

    Miners (Absenteeism)
    Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has noted the remarks of the Select Committee on National Expenditure that new experiments should be tried to reduce absenteeism in the mines; that suspensions, dismissals or imprisonment tend to defeat the object of the punishment by removing the miner from where he is most needed; and whether he intends to act upon that suggestion?
    The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): Neither my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service nor I have any desire to use the sanctions of suspension, dismissal or imprisonment. The procedure for dealing with absenteeism laid down in the Government's White Paper on Coal has now been in operation for nearly a year. It has been improved from time to time to eliminate unnecessary delay, and the records of the work of regional investigation officers show that every means of persuading and reasoning with defaulters is exhausted before in the last resort cases are recommended for court action. The possibility of adopting new methods is kept constantly in mind, but I would point out that the essence of the experiment referred to by the Select Committee on National Expenditure is its voluntary acceptance by the men.
    Mr. Davies: Will not the Minister understand that coal miners are the last men in the world who can be compelled to do anything? Cannot he devise some scheme to appeal to their good will, as compulsion has failed?
    Major Lloyd George: I can assure my hon. Friend that for the last 12 months, since my Ministry has been formed, tremendous steps have been taken in that direction. Men are interrogated, and it is only after all this has failed that action is taken.
    Mr. Davies: Does not the Minister intend to take note of what the Select Committee has told him?
    Major Lloyd George: We have been doing what the Select Committee said to me for some considerable time. The experiment referred to by the Committee is one which we have put into effect.
    Mr. Davies: I am sorry to interrupt again, but when dealing with absenteeism will the Minister bear in mind that some colliers in hot pits lose as much as 10 or 12 lbs. a day in weight and that they are not getting sufficient rations to make good that loss and keep up their physical standard?
    Major Lloyd George: All our investigation officers are conversant with the conditions in the pits, and all these things are taken into consideration.
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Can the Minister say what method is used in Soviet Russia when there is absenteeism?
    Mr. McGovern: In how many cases have directors been prosecuted for absenteeism?
    Major Lloyd George: I should have to have notice of that Question.
    Major Vyvyan Adams: Why is it necessary to tolerate this absenteeism at all since when ex-miners join the Services they are not allowed to be absent without leave without something happening to them?
    Major Lloyd George: I have never excused absenteeism in any industry, nor has anyone else in this House, but I would like to point out that this is the only industry which has this limelight upon it. As I have said before, there is no evidence that absenteeism is worse in this industry than in any other.
    Major Lloydasked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he can give the percentage of figures of avoidable absenteeism among Scottish miners over the last available period; and what steps
    508
    are being taken to reduce the figures of avoidable absenteeism in Scottish mines?
    Major Lloyd George: The percentage of avoidable absenteeism among Scottish mine-workers, as recorded on the returns made by colliery companies, was 4.33 per cent. in the four weeks ended 29th May, 1943, the latest period for which figures are available. The steps which are being taken to reduce absenteeism in Scotland are similar to those in all other regions. Every effort is made by the Regional Investigation Officers to persuade offenders to attend regularly; if methods of persuasion are ineffective, persistent offenders are recommended for prosecution.
    Major Lloyd: Having tried all reasonable methods without much success, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider more drastic measures? Would it not be possible to try calling up some of these men?
    Major Lloyd George: I can only repeat that we deal with them in the way we think best, and, if that fails, we prosecute.
    Mr. Stephen: Cannot the right hon. and gallant Gentleman arrange with the Member who put the Question to go and work in the pits?
    Mr. Bowles: Is there any evidence at all to show that there is discontent among miners owing to their dissatisfaction at the continuance of the old financial structure of the industry?
    Major Lloyd George.
    Mr. Bowles: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman make inquiries?
    Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Denville: Is it not a fact that a lot of absenteeism is due to discontent among certain inners who would prefer to join the Army?
    Mr. R. J. Taylor: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman state any industry in the country with which the amount of avoidable absenteeism is as bad as stated?
    Major Lloyd George: I said in answer to a previous Question that there is no evidence that this is by any means the worst industry. It is the one industry which has the limelight constantly upon it. No industry keeps figures comparable with this.

    Coal (Output)
    Mr. Ralph Ethertonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power in how many one-week periods in 1943 the production of coal has been in excess of the production in the corresponding weeks in 1942 and 1939 respectively?
    Major Lloyd George: The comparison of the coal output of individual weeks of 1943 with that of the same periods of 1942 and 1939 is affected by the different incidence of holidays. Without making allowance for that factor, seven of the first 22 weeks of 1943 showed a higher output than the corresponding weeks of 1942; two of them were higher than in the same weeks of 1939.
    Mr. Ethertonasked the Minister of Fuel and Power the average output in hundredweights of coal per man-shift for the first three months of 1943 and whether there has been an increase or decline compared with 1942 and 1941?
    Major Lloyd George: The average output of saleable coal per man-shift worked for the first three months of 1943 was 21.08 hundredweights. This was higher than in the corresponding period of 1942, but slightly lower than in the first quarter of 1941.
    Mr. Etherton: In view of the fact that 1941 showed a drop of 1¾ cwts. per man-shift as compared with 1939, does not the Minister regard this further decline as serious?
    Major Lloyd George: The hon. Member must remember that in 1939 there were about 60,000 more miners in the industry and that of that number the vast majority were young men, who are the highest producers in the industry!
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is not the Minister aware that these Questions about absenteeism and the quantity of coal being produced are causing serious discontent among the miners? It is a downright shame that Members should put such Questions. Mining is one of the most damnable jobs man ever had to do.
    Mr. McGovern: These Members are coal-owners.
    Major Lloydasked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many miners in Scottish collieries are working only four or five hours per shift on afternoon and night
    510
    shifts; in what areas does this situation exist; and why miners are only working such short time?
    Major Lloyd George: I have no precise figures on this point, but I am aware that the practice of leaving early is fairly widespread in Scotland and particularly in parts of Lanarkshire. It is most prevalent among afternoon shift workers, but is common also among night shift men and is not unknown on the day shift. Where working conditions are exceptionally bad and the men have finished their work satisfactorily, it is not unreasonable that they should be allowed to leave a little early, but there is no doubt that the privilege has been and still is greatly abused. My Regional Controller and I are both watching the situation very closely, and are endeavouring to deal with it with the co-operation of the Regional Coal Board, the pit production committees and the trade unions.
    Major Lloyd: Does the Minister realise, as I am sure he does, that the great majority of miners are thoroughly discontented with their more recalcitrant comrades who indulge in this practice? Is he aware that people in Scotland are getting very concerned at the prospect of a great coal shortage in the winter; and will he not do something to strengthen the hands of the decent hard-working miners and prevent the action of idlers who will not do their bit?
    Major Lloyd George: I am in close touch with my Regional Controller on this matter, and he, in turn, is in close contact not only with the Coal Board itself, but with all the trade unions concerned. The attention of pit production committees has been directed to this question.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister aware that the men referred to are working shorter hours? When brushers have done their job they are only wasting their own and the mine's time if they have to remain down the pit.
    Major Lloyd George: That is true to a certain extent. I can only repeat that I am in close touch with all those concerned in this matter.
    Mr. Buchanan: Does not the Minister agree that the practice of allowing men who have nothing further to do to go home, instead of being a nuisance to

    511
    other people, should not be discontinued merely because certain things are happening?
    Major Lloyd George: I am fully aware of that point.

    Domestic Coal (Allocation)
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. COCKS:
    6. To ask the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that in Hucknall, Nottinghamshire, the amount of coal available for the current period only amounts to roughly 15 cwts. per domestic consumer although the maximum permitted quantity is 25 cwts.; and whether he will prevent a merchant supplying favoured customers with 25 cwts. with the result that other customers are unable to obtain their fair share of the allocation or even have to go without altogether?
    Mr. Cocks: This Question has been slightly altered. I did not intend to make any reflection on any particular merchant.
    Major Lloyd George: The maximum permitted quantities are intentionally fixed higher than the average available per registration. Merchants generally are distributing their supplies as equitably as possible within the maximum quantities permitted. I am quite prepared to take action in any case where it is shown that a consumer has been left without coal owing to unjustified discrimination by a merchant between consumers.
    Mr. Cocks: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman any legal power to prevent a merchant supplying a customer with the 25 cwts. permitted by law even if it has the result that others have to take less than 15 cwts.?
    Major Lloyd George: No, there is no need to. The 25 cwts. is a maximum and not a ration. There is no reason why he should not go up to the 25 cwts., provided he has not more than a certain amount in his cellar.
    Mr. Cocksasked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) whether he is aware that the announcement by his Department that 25 cwts. is the maximum quantity of coal permitted to any domestic consumer during the current restriction period is having a misleading effect
    512
    on the public and causing considerable confusion; and, as in no district in the country are house supplies adequate to allow 25 cwts. to every customer, will he now make a further statement;
    (2) whether, in considering the maximum amount of coal to be permitted to any domestic consumer during the period July to September, he will fix a figure which will bear a closer relation to the amount of coal available than the figure of the current period?
    Major Lloyd George: It has been emphasised repeatedly that the maximum permitted quantities are above the average quantity available per consumer, and are not rations to which all consumers are entitled irrespective of their needs. Many consumers, owing to the limited size of their household, or their use of gas or electricity for cooking and heating, can manage with quantities considerably below the maximum. Moreover, many consumers will be precluded by the stock limit of two tons from obtaining the full permitted quantity. These facts make it possible to fix the permitted quantity at a figure which materially exceeds the average supply available per registration, thus enabling many thousands of householders, whose needs are slightly above the average, to obtain their requirements without applying for licences. I would also point out that during the summer the general reduction in consumption and demand leaves a margin available for stocking against the requirements of the following winter. The present arrangement has operated satisfactorily for over a year, and I do not consider it advisable to make any change.
    Mr. Cocks: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that many members of the public object to receiving only 15 cwt. when they are allowed 25 cwt. and know that some are getting it, especially when the Department is urging members of the public to get by licence extra soal for stocking? Is he further aware that many merchants, and even local fuel overseers, would like the figure reduced in the next period and cannot understand why the Department is so obstinate, which obstinancy is so unlike the Minister himself?
    Major Lloyd George: I appreciate the hon. Member's observation. He need not worry too much in view of what happened

    513
    last summer. We had no difficulty then about it, and there is no need to change, because the allocation given to districts bears a very close resemblance to the actual consumption last year. It has been carefully worked out throughout the country. While there may be some difficulty in individual cases, taking the districts as a whole it is working satisfactorily.

    Armed Forces (Release of Miners)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the serious decline in the coal output, he will consider convening a meeting of the Service chiefs and the Minister of Labour with a view to releasing a further limited number of younger miners who are at present serving with the Forces, so as to ensure an increased output?
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir; the requirements of particular industries are kept ,constantly under review and adequate machinery already exists for allocating the appropriate man-power.
    Mr. De la Bère: Will not my right hon. Friend endeavour to get the Government to get the right perspective on this matter? Is it not important that we should have more coal, and will he not do something, at any rate early in the autumn?
    Mr. S. O. Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the appropriate man-power is available in this country? If so, what evidence can he give to the House that that is the position?
    Mr. Attlee: That is another question. I have answered the Question on the subject of the machinery.
    Mr. Davies: My supplementary question was based on the words used by the right hon. Gentleman, and I think he should answer it on such an extremely important matter.
    Mr. Attlee: The hon. Member's question related to certain facts with regard to the adequacy of the labour power. The Question I answered was with regard to the machinery for allocation.

    ENEMY SUBMARINES (NON-NOTIFICATION, EIRE GOVERNMENT)
    Sir William Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs
    514
    whether his attention has been called to a recent statement by Mr. De Valera, in the Dail, that although the Irish shipping company's vessel "Irish Oak" was aware that a German submarine was in the vicinity of a British convoy no information to this effect was given to the convoy in question, as Mr. De Valera stated it was no business of Eire's ships to give information to anyone; and whether, as Eire is largely dependent for much of its supplies on exports from overseas in British protected convoys, he will ask the Eire Government to notify British convoys in future in similar circumstances?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): The facts of this incident are that a British convoy was aware of the presence of an enemy submarine and also of the presence of the "Irish Oak," which was subsequently sunk. No communication between the latter ship and the convoy was made or would, in any case, have served any purpose, since the convoy was fully aware of the position. No doubt the submarine preferred to attack and sink an unprotected Eire ship instead of attacking a protected British convoy. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative. The object of the statement by Mr. De Valera, to which the Question refers, was no doubt to dispose of any possible German allegation that the sinking by a German submarine of the Eire ship in question was justified on the ground that it had given information about German submarine movements. It would evidently be useless to ask the Government of Eire to authorise any action which they would consider unneutral.
    Sir W. Davison: In view of the action and inaction in this and other matters on the part of Mr. De Valera, which has involved the loss of hundreds of British and American lives, ought not some vigorous protest to be made by the British Government to the Eire Government on the matter?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: I have pointed out that it is useless to ask the Eire Government to take any action which they think will be unneutral, and any protest, however undesirable the position may be, would not have any effect.
    Professor Savory: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the statements in the Question of the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) are fully borne out in the Official Report of the Debate in Eire which I hold in my hand, and may I ask the hon. Gentleman to call the attention of the Prime Minister of Eire to the fact that British ships are taking to Eire our best tea and our best coal at the risk of the lives of British sailors?
    Major Petherick: Would it not be wise policy to tell the Government of Eire that their imports and exports must be carried exclusively in Irish ships?
    Mr. Emrys-Evans: It is impossible to discuss the whole question of trade relations with Eire by Question and Answer.
    Sir W. Davison: In any event will a memorandum be sent to the Eire Government expressing the strong feelings in this matter felt on all sides in this House and throughout the country and in America?

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Small Traders (Post-War Policy)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government are now in a position to make an announcement in connection with a long term policy to safeguard the interests of the small trader after the cessation of hostilities?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): On the question of whether or not, and, if so, subject to what modifications, the present arrangements for the licensing of shops shall continue after the war, I have invited the views of the principal organisations concerned. Other problems, affecting the future of retail trade, are also being considered, in relation to the Government's post-war policy as a whole.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware of one central and vital fact—that protective legislation to safeguard the businesses of small shopkeepers will have to be introduced on the cessation of hostilities. Is he further aware that the matter of the small shopkeeper cannot be lightly dismissed, in fact, cannot be dismissed at all?
    Mr. Dalton: Nothing is being lightly dismissed, and the organisations, including that of which the hon. Member is a distinguished ornament and vice president, are being consulted.

    Nurses' Uniforms
    Mr. Ralph Ethertonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will examine the practicability of substituting for the recent concessions under which a rebate can be claimed on nurses' uniforms, a reduction in the coupon value of a State nurse's overall to three coupons, so that much correspondence, time and paper, can be saved and nurses placed in a position similar to that of other workers?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. I am already examining proposals not unlike those suggested by my hon. Friend.

    Grain and Seeds (Allied Governments)
    Mr. Fraserasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Allied Governments are now individually completing contracts for the purchase of grain and seeds for post-war requirements; and whether these contracts have been completed in the knowledge of the Inter-Allied Post-War Requirements Committee?
    Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir. Some purchases of wheat and of special seeds have been made by certain Allied Governments for post-war needs. Last summer the Allied Governments agreed, at the joint request of the United States and United Kingdom Governments, to consult those Governments before placing contracts for postwar supplies. The Inter-Allied Committee is preparing estimates of post-war requirements, but is not concerned with particular purchases by individual Governments.

    Domestic Wireless Sets
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in the design and manufacture of the utility radio sets; and whether he is now in a position to make a pronouncement as to the date they will be available to the general public?
    Mr. Dalton: 90,000 domestic wireless sets are still in process of manufacture, and these should be completed and released during this year. In addition to this, arrangements have been made to import supplies from the United States for

    517
    early delivery. I have decided that, after the sets in process of manufacture have been completed, any new domestic sets made here shall be of simple standard designs. Discussions on this are now proceeding with the trade. No sets of this type could be available until next year.

    Wearing of Stockings (Women Shop Assistants)
    Mr. Ivor Thomasasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Messrs. Bourne & Hollingsworth, of Oxford Street, have refused to allow their female staff to come to business without stockings; and as this is inconsistent with the need for encouraging clothes economy wherever possible, what steps does he propose to take in this matter?
    Mr. Dalton: I have seen references in the Press to instructions about the wearing of stockings issued by Messrs. Bourne and Hollingsworth to their staff; and one of the governing directors of this firm has sent me a copy of a notice to his employees, containing the following sentence:
    "If Government authorities hold that an employer has no right to insist on proper dress on the part of employees, it is for them to issue an order accordingly."
    I have no intention to make such an Order, but I have frequently drawn attention to the urgent need for the utmost economy in clothing by all sections of the community. It is now nearly two years ago that the Treasury issued a circular suggesting that Government Departments should set an example to other employers by instructing their women staff that stockings need not be worn. Since that time the stringency in clothing supplies has, of course, greatly increased.
    Mr. Rhys Davies: Why is this distinction drawn between women and men? Cannot men be asked to go without socks?
    Mr. Dalton: I hope that, weather permitting, my hon. Friend will come down to the House without socks.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Detention Barracks (Inspection)
    Mr. John Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for War how many times per annum inspecting officers are sent down to the principal detention branches?
    The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): An officer, usually not below field rank, is detailed weekly by the general officer commanding or the officer commanding the station as visitor of the detention barracks or military prison. He sees all men under sentence and inquires into any complaints they may have. He reports direct to the officer by whom he was detailed to carry out this duty. The Inspector of Military Prisons and Detention Barracks is on tour throughout the year. He reports to the War Office. Inspections are also carried out by other officers from Command headquarters and from the departments concerned in the War Office.
    Mr. Dugdale: Are these inspections made at irregular intervals, such as those made by Home Office inspectors of our prisons?
    Sir J. Grigg: I cannot give a firm answer without notice, but I should imagine that they do not occur at regular intervals.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a most unsatisfactory method of gathering prisoners' complaints, as very few prisoners would take the opportunity of the inspecting officer's visits to make complaints to him?
    Mr. Dugdaleasked the Secretary of State for War how many times per week officers commanding detention barracks visit each section of their barracks?
    Sir J. Grigg: As far as it is practicable officers commanding detention barracks visit the whole of their detention barrack or prison and see every soldier under sentence at least once in 24 hours.

    Good Conduct Badges
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for War whether any good conduct badges are issued to personnel in the Army after three years' qualifying service, with extra pay, similar to the system adopted in the Royal Air Force?
    Sir J. Grigg: Good conduct badges may be awarded to soldiers under the rank of corporal, the qualifying period for the first badge being two years' service with the Colours. They carry no financial benefit. But private soldiers are in general eligible after three years' service for reclassification in Class IA and so for an extra 3d. a day on their pay. Soldiers

    519
    are also eligible for an extra 3d. a day for long service and good conduct after eight years' service and for a further 3d. a day after 13 years' service.
    Mr. Bellenger: Will my right hon. Friend consider instituting a scheme in the Army similar to that in the R.A.F., as good conduct badges are not very much good unless there is extra pay?
    Sir J. Grigg: The R.A.F. system is different from the Army system. They have not two systems but one. The Army and R.A.F. systems are not quite the same in detail, but they amount to very much the same in the long run.

    Auxiliary Territorial Service
    Lady Apsleyasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that £1 10s. to purchase civilian clothes on discharge from the Auxiliary Territorial Service is insufficient at the present time for women discharged on medical or other grounds; and whether he has yet decided to increase the amount?
    Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir. It has now been decided to increase the grant, and the necessary instructions will be issued as soon as possible.
    Mr. Pearsonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that orders have been issued by the senior commander, Auxiliary Territorial Service, at Donnington Camp, Salop, forbidding parcels containing eatables in their quarters; and will he take steps to have the order rescinded?
    Sir J. Grigg: The order referred to was issued because it was found that auxiliaries were keeping food in their quarters under most unhygienic conditions. Arrangements are now being made for perishable food received or bought by the auxiliaries to be stored in unit storerooms from which it can be drawn as required. The order will be modified accordingly.
    Mr. Pearson: While appreciating the reply, may I ask my right hon. Friend to undertake to see that any charges against members of the unit referred to under this order are erased from the records?
    Sir J. Grigg: I do not admit that it was an unreasonable order. It was a perfectly
    520
    natural and reasonable one, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to make any suggestion of victimisation, perhaps he will communicate the charges to me.

    Pyjamas
    Lady Apsleyasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the issue of pyjamas, or coupons with which to purchase them, to soldiers in His Majesty's forces?
    Sir J. Grigg: Pyjamas have never been issued to other ranks either free or on repayment, and I regret that the shortage of materials is such that I cannot hold out any hopes that the present policy can be reversed. I would also refer the Noble Lady to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to my hon. Friend the Member for North Hackney (Sir A. Hudson) on 23rd February.
    Lady Apsley: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the hardship which this causes to the wives who have to supply the necessary coupons?
    Sir J. Grigg: I think that I am aware by this time of practically all the considerations in this matter. I seem to be in a complete dilemma about it, and I do not think it is a problem which is soluble.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree with the principle that pyjamas should be issued to private soldiers?
    Sir J. Grigg: I will not accept any principle unless I am in a position to carry it into effect.
    Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider preventing any civilians having material for pyjamas until the soldiers have got them?

    Accident, Haydon Bridge
    Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any information in connection with the three soldiers killed at Haydon Bridge, Northumberland; and whether his attention has been called to the statement made by the coroner at the inquest on 29th May?
    Sir J. Grigg: Inquiries are being made into this accident, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend when I have received further information.

    Home Guard
    Dr. Russell Thomasasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider recommending the granting of colours to the Home Guard?
    Sir J. Grigg: No colours have been granted to the Army or carried by the Army since the outbreak of war, and I regret that no exception to this rule can be made in the case of the Home Guard.

    Discharged Personnel (Clothing Allowance)
    Captain Stricklandasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give fresh consideration to the clothing allowance made to serving men on their discharge which is at present quite inadequate to refit them in civilian clothes?
    Sir J. Grigg: A man discharged is provided by the Army with civilian clothes. If for reasons of his own he does not want these clothes he is given a cash allowance instead calculated on the cost to the Government of the clothes normally issued. The allowance does not purport to buy the clothes at retail prices. I regret that I see no reason for increasing it.
    Mr. McGovern: If the clothing is refused, does this soldier get coupons for clothing?
    Sir J. Grigg: I should like to have notice of that question.

    Magazines
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Mooreasked the Secretary of State for War whether demands for magazines from the Army still exceed the supply available; and whether he will consider any action to meet the deficit?
    Sir J. Grigg: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." Steps are now under consideration to increase the supply of magazines.

    North African Operations (List of Units)
    General Sir George Jeffreysasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the list of the regiments engaged in the recent Tunisian operations recently given officially was partial and incomplete; and whether he will make a statement in this House giving, in their proper order, a complete list of the regiments and corps engaged, including the individual regiments of the Royal
    522
    Armoured Corps and Brigade of Guards, so as to correct the wrong impressions which are current?
    Lieut.-Colonel Heneageasked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now given the further consideration promised in September, 1942, to the fact that units of the Royal Artillery are practically never mentioned by name, although the good work of the artillery in the Middle East is acknowledged generally, and as one unit is acknowledged to have earned the title of the V.C. battery, will he let the British public know of its performances?
    Sir J. Grigg: I will, with my hon. and gallant Friends' permission, answer these Questions together, and I will take this opportunity to answer an unstarred Question standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn).
    "To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will give a list of all the regiments and units of the Army, including Indian and Dominion troops who took part in the Egyptian and North African campaign."
    Everyone will sympathise with the wish expressed by my hon. and gallant Friends that credit should publicly be given to all the regiments and corps to which was due the outstanding success of the campaign in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. I am most anxious to have published a full list, including units of the Royal Artillery. I am, however, advised by General Alexander, with whom I have been in communication, that the publication of such a list at the present time would be of definite value to the enemy and might prejudice the success of any operation pending and the safety of the troops. I need hardly add that the military authorities are as anxious as anyone that the achievements of all the units concerned should be fully appreciated and they will release further names whenever possible, particularly in the case of units associated with individual distinguished actions such as that referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth.
    Sir Hugh O'Neill: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in view of the fact that it may not be possible to publish the names of all units, on what considerations a selection was made of those that were published?
    Sir J. Grigg: No, Sir, except that I imagine that the list which was announced in another place was merely confined to those units which had actually been mentioned in messages from North Africa.
    Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is considerable feeling in the Army that the publication of names and numbers—I am speaking for the Royal Artillery—is long overdue. Will he bear in mind the feelings of the men and their families?
    Sir J. Grigg: I am well aware of the great interest in this question, both in this House and the Army, and I will do everything I can to meet this desire, but the final decision must be that of the commander on the spot.
    Sir G. Jeffreys: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my Question need never have been put down if three weeks ago he had seen fit to answer a letter I addressed to him arising out of the original statement?
    Sir J. Grigg: I would not have been in a position to answer the letter until two days ago. I hope that disposes of any appearance of undue delay in answering a letter.
    Sir R. Glyn: Can my right hon. Friend satisfy the House that there will be no more official statements made of an incomplete character? Does he not appreciate the position that units and relations are in if they do not see the names of the regiments with which they are associated? The House would agree that there should be no question of doing anything to risk public safety, but, on the other hand, it is exasperating when Ministers make incomplete statements.
    Sir J. Grigg: I am aware of the consideration to which my hon. and gallant Friend draws attention, but I think that if his principle was carried to its logical conclusion there would be a diminution in the number of names of units published.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the feeling on this matter is fairly universal in the country?
    Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir. I have said that, and it is a feeling with which I have sympathy, but the final criterion in this matter is the safety of the troops as judged by the general commanding on the spot.
    Mr. Wood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain units which have not
    524
    been mentioned have already had prisoners taken and so their presence would be known?
    Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir, I am aware that that has happened, but again I say that the final word in this matter must rest with those on the spot who are responsible for the conduct of operations.
    Viscount Hinchingbrookeasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will publish the names of corps and divisional commanders in the North African campaign where their formations have already been publicly referred to?
    Sir J. Grigg: I could not give a categorical answer to this Question without consulting the military authorities in North Africa. It may very well be that the enemy do not know the names of all these commanders.

    Permanent Libraries (House of Commons Official Report)
    Commander King-Hallasked the Secretary of State for War how many permanent libraries, other than small collections of books with field forces, are under the control of his Department; and how many of such libraries are kept regularly supplied with bound copies of Hansard?
    Sir J. Grigg: There are 1,190 permanent libraries in the Army and the Royal Air Force at home and abroad. The answer to the last part of the Question is "None, Sir."
    Commander King-Hall: Would not my right hon. Friend at least see that bound copies or daily copies of the Proceedings of this House are supplied to the larger libraries of the Forces? I can supply my right hon. Friend with evidence that there is a great demand in the Army to read them. Will he appeal to Members to send their spare copies to him so that they can be distributed?
    Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly consider that, but my attitude is, roughly, the same as that of the First Lord of the Admiralty.
    Viscountess Astor: Is it not hard enough to have to fight for the country without having to read Hansard?

    German Mark VI Tiger Tanks
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for War how many German Mark VI Tiger tanks were captured in Tunisia?
    Mr. Bellengerasked the Secretary of State for War how many German Mark VI tanks the Allies have captured in North Africa?
    Sir J. Grigg: The clearing of the battlefield is still continuing, and as yet there is no information available as to the number of German Mark IV Tiger tanks destroyed or captured in North Africa.
    Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give me an answer to this Question when we reassemble after Whitsuntide?
    Mr. Bellenger: In view of the desirability of getting accurate information about German Mark VI tanks, can my right hon. Friend say whether he has got even one specimen of them?
    Sir J. Grigg: The very next Question on the Order Paper deals with that point.
    Rear-Admiral Beamishasked the Secretary of State for War the calibre and weight of gun and weight and type of projectiles with which the German Mark VI Tiger tank is equipped; and the speed and total weight of the tank and the thickness of its armour?
    Sir J. Grigg: This tank weighs between 55 and 60 tons. Its front armour plates are 4 inches thick and the side ones 3¼ inches thick. Its gun has a calibre of 8.8 centimetres and weighs about 1½ tons. The gun fires an armour piercing shell weighing 20 lbs. 12 ozs. and a high explosive shell weighing 20 lbs. 5 ozs. The speed of the tank depends greatly on the surface over which it is travelling. It might reach a speed of 16 miles per hour on good level ground.
    Mr. Bellenger: How does my right hon. Friend know that information if he has not captured any of these tanks?
    Sir J. Grigg: I did not say that I had not captured any. I said that I had not counted the number captured or destroyed.

    Corps of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers
    Sir Robert Youngasked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made in the formation of the Corps of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers; whether he is satisfied that all the necessary skilled craftsmen have been
    526
    transferred from other regiments to this corps; and what are the decisions of the Army authorities as to its future use and its status as part of the British post-war Army?
    Sir J. Grigg: The formation of this Corps has naturally been made more difficult by urgent preparations for operations and by the operations themselves, but the progress made has nevertheless been highly satisfactory. The question of the further absorption of certain craftsmen from other corps and regiments into the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers is now receiving active and detailed consideration in its operational and administrative aspects. No engineering tradesman is, however, knowingly employed in any arm of the Service in which full use is not made of his trade. The Corps is a combatant corps of the Regular Army and its future role, as was originally intended, is the maintenance, subject to certain exceptions, of all mechanical and electrical equipment used by the Army.
    Sir R. Young: Will my right hon. Friend consider the desirability of ensuring that only skilled men are recruited for the Corps in the future?
    Sir J. Grigg: I should like to have notice of that Question, but I will certainly consider the point.

    Voluntary Aid Detachments
    Miss Rathboneasked the Secretary of State for War whether he can now make a statement as to his proposed action concerning the Report of the Committee on the Status of the Voluntary Aid Detachments in. Military Hospitals; and as to whether its recommendations will be carried into effect?
    Sir J. Grigg: I propose, so far as the War Office is concerned, to accept the Report of the Committee, which was published this morning as a White Paper, but as I undertook to make a statement to the House before taking action, I shall not actually promulgate the decision until I learn whether it is the wish of the House to discuss the Report. I would add that I understand that the voluntary bodies concerned are satisfied that the recommendations made by the Committee offer a fair solution to the problem, having regard to the many factors which had to be considered.
    Miss Rathbone: Are we to understand from that answer that the right hon. Gentleman himself as well as the voluntary organisations concerned are on the whole satisfied with the recommendations?
    Sir J. Grigg: I think on the whole it is a very satisfactory solution of an intractable problem.

  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR
  Mr. Tintonasked the Secretary of State for War the monthly amount of the special allowance that is credited to the account in England of a subaltern officer prisoner of war in Italy in respect of the expenses on account of maintenance which have to be met from his pay issued in Italy?
  Sir J. Grigg: This is an allowance of 3s. a day, and so for a 30 day month £4 10s. is credited to the officer's account.
  Mr. Turtan: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this allowance enables a prisoner of war to save for post-war years?
  Sir J. Grigg: I am not satisfied in the least that it is sufficient to meet the increased charge which the Italians have imposed on officer prisoners of war, and that is a question which is at present under consideration.
  Sir A. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for War, in the advance of pay to British officer prisoners of war in Germany and Italy, at what rate to the L are Reichsmarks and lira debited against these officers' accounts in Britain; and whether the rate is considered fair?
  Sir J. Grigg: As required by the International Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, rates of exchange have been agreed with the Governments concerned at 15 Reichsmarks to the £ and 72 lire to the £ The answer to the last part of the Question is "Yes, Sir."
  Sir A. Knox: Will the right hon. Gentleman state when this statement was made, and also say whether he considers these rates are fair to our people?
  Sir J. Grigg: They certainly do not represent what I imagine to be the real comparison of values, but in the case of Italy we have given an extra allowance to compensate for the high cost of Mess-
  528
  ing there. In Germany there is very little for prisoners of war to spend money upon. There is free messing on both sides there.
  Sir A. Knox: If there is nothing for them to spend money on, why should they be debited with large sums?
  Sir J. Grigg: If they do not spend the money, they will not be out of pocket.

  EVICTED TENANTS, GLASGOW
  Mr. Maxtonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that several families are being evicted from the tenement at 199, Millroad Street, in the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow; that no satisfactory alternative accommodation has been offered; and whether he will take steps to enable Glasgow Corporation to provide safe and hygienic housing for citizens rendered homeless?
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I am informed that, as a result of the tenement at 199, Mill-road Street being declared dangerous by the Dean of Guild Court, several families will require to vacate their houses. I understand, however, that the Corporation have offered these families suitable accommodation in a property belonging to the Corporation and which has recently been reconditioned.
  Mr. Maxton: Is my right hon. Friend taking any steps to see that the alternative accommodation is an improvement on the houses from which these people have been evicted? Is he aware that his own Department prevents the Glasgow Corporation from making the necessary improvements that would make the homes habitable?
  Mr. Johnston: I am informed that the premises now offered are a great improvement structurally upon the houses in which these poor families were living and that the standard of habitability—I think that is the right word—which has been effected in the new premises is the same as for all premises reconditioned by the Corporation.
  Mr. Maxton: Is it not the case that the Corporation would make the houses decent if the right hon. Gentleman's Department of Health would allow them to do so?

  AFFORESTATION (HARDWOOD TREES)
  Mr. John Dugdaleasked the right hon. Baronet the Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether all land in the possession of the Forestry Commission and suitable for the planting of hardwood trees is in fact so planted?
  Colonel Sir George Courthope (Forestry Commissioner): The answer is in the negative. There is still a large area to he afforested or replanted after war fellings, and a proportion will be suitable for the production of hardwoods.
  Mr. Dugdale: Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly reply to my Question, which was whether all land of this kind will in fact be so planted?
  Sir G. Courthope: My hon. Friend asked whether it is planted. Land that we consider suitable for the production of hardwoods will be so planted.
  Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Is planting going on now?
  Sir G. Courthope: It is going on now, so far as labour is available.

  CLOTHING COUPONS (THEFT, LONDON)
  Mr. Thorneasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give any information in connection with the 155,000 clothing coupons stolen from an office in Victoria Street, S.W., on the night of 29th May; whether they were locked in a safe; whether the safe was carried away; and whether anyone has been arrested?
  The Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department (Mr. Peake): The coupons in question were stolen from an office of His Majesty's Customs and Excise where they were stored in a specially constructed press fitted with a padlock which was forced. Police inquiries are still proceeding, and I am informed that no arrest has yet been made.
  Mr. Thorne: Does not the Minister think that someone ought to be appointed to be on guard, in cases where there are valuables to be protected?
  Mr. Peake: The question of the provision of protection in cases of this kind is the subject of consultations between Scotland Yard and His Majesty's Department of Customs and Excise at the present time.

  POST-WAR BUILDING PLANS
  Sir Leonard Lyleasked the Prime Minister whether, to ensure that on the close of hostilities the building trade may be in a position to start operations immediately, he will take an early opportunity of indicating the Government policy in relation to siting, acquisition of land and density of construction?
  Mr. Attlee: As regards the acquisition of land, the Government have already announced acceptance of the principle that planning authorities should be given extended powers of compulsory acquisition of land in war-damaged and other reconstruction areas required to be developed as a whole; and legislation for this purpose will be introduced in due course. Siting and density of construction are matters for the consideration of the planning authorities in the first instance, and for determination by them and my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Town and Country Planning. In so far as my hon. Friend has wider questions in mind, I would refer him to the reply given to the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) on 10th March, 1943, by the Leader of the House, and to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) Bill on 11th May, 1943.
  Sir L. Lyle: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if, by some miracle, the war were to end to-night, there would be vast unemployment for many months?
  Mr. Gallacher: If the principle is to operate and the land is taken away from the landlords, will the right hon. Gentleman see that the landlords get a sympathetic hearing before the public assistance committees?
  Mr. Bossom: Is it not the case that it will probably take about a year between the introduction of the proposed measures

  531
  and the possibility of starting construction? If that is so, will not the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to introduce speed into the consideration of the matter?
  Mr. Attlee: The necessity for speed is aiready recognised.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Are we to understand from the last reply that this is an attempt by the Government to carry out what the Labour Party has always stood for—nationalisation of the land?
  Viscountess Astor: You have stood for it but have never done it.

  MILITARY POLICE
  Mr. Purbrickasked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to releasing man-power and increasing efficiency, he will arrange for the police forces of the three Services to be amalgamated and have one police force to carry out all these duties?
  Mr. Attlee: The number of military police is always taken into account when the establishments of the Royal Air Force police are being fixed. There are, moreover, definite advantages for the Services in the present arrangements—for example, it is essential to have military police with military formations in the field—and I do not think the change suggested by my hon. Friend is necessary.
  Sir Herbert Williams: How many brands of military police are now wandering around in London?
  Mr. Attlee: I could not say.

  EMPIRE FORCES (WAR CASUALTIES)
  Mr. Rhys Daviesasked the Prime Minister whether the numbers of casualties among Empire Forces during the first three years of war include casualties in Empire navies; and whether he can state the number of deaths from natural causes among Empire Forces for the three years covered by those figures?
  Mr. Attlee: Yes, Sir. As regards the last part of the Question, it would not be in the public interest to give the information asked for by my hon. Freind.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Old Age Pensions
    Major Procterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of increasing the basic pensions of noncontributory old age pensioners by 5s. a week?
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): If the non-contributory old age pension rate were raised above the contributory pension rate, it would be necessary to extend the higher rate to those contributory pensioners who satisfied the conditions for non-contributory pensions. The numbers of this latter class are unknown, and consequently the only estimate that can be given is that of the cost of raising the pension rate by 5s. both for non-contributory pensioners and also for all contributory pensioners aged 70 and over. The cost of this is estimated at £14,000,000 a year, allowing for the consequential saving on the cost of supplementary pensions that would result from the change.
    Mr. Gallacher: Would it not be much better to pay these extra old age pensions than to keep on paying rent, interest and profit?
    Mr. Thorneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered a resolution from' the borough council of Brentford and Chiswick asking the Government to increase the basic rate of the old age pensioners; and what answer he has returned?
    Sir K. Wood: As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, this matter is now under examination in connection with the Beveridge Report.

    Income Tax Forms (Overseas Service)
    Sir G. Jeffreysasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, when Income Tax payers are serving their country overseas and have left behind letters of authority with their bankers to sign Income Tax returns and claims on their behalf, he is aware that inspectors are refusing to approve such authority if given to a corporate body; and whether, in view of the war-time difficulties, he will modify such refusal?
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): I understand that the practice in this matter has been recon-

    533
    sidered and that the inland Revenue Department will accept an Income Tax claim or return made by a banker on behalf of a client on active service overseas where the banker holds the client's authority for the purpose.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (MEDICAL SERVICES)
    Sir Percy Hurdasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what Departments have medical services of their own; what is the total personnel and cost; and whether it is proposed to bring these departmental services into the new national health organisation?
    Mr. Assheton: In the Post Office a headquarters medical branch of about 25 is maintained at an estimated annual cost of about £12,275 and, in addition, capitation fees amounting to about £65,000 a year are paid to some 2,600 local medical officers. Very much smaller services of the same kind are provided in the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise, and Ordnance Survey Departments, occupying in the aggregate less than half a dozen officers and costing under £2,000 a year.
    Medical service is at present provided in Ordnance factories under the Ministry of Supply, but detailed information is not yet assembled and I will communicate further with my hon. Friend.
    In reply to the last part of the Question this will be one of the matters to be considered in organising any new national health service.

    FIRE GUARD DUTIES (WOMEN)
    Sir T. Mooreasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women have been compulsorily enrolled for fire-watching; how many claims for exemption have been received and how many have been granted up to the latest available date?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): Owing to the amount of work involved I have riot as yet asked local authorities to furnish returns of the number of women enrolled for Fire Guard duties. Up to 30th April, 1943, 61,272 women had been exempted from these duties under the Compulsory Enrolment Order by the Tribunals on the ground of exceptional hard-
    534
    ship. In addition various classes of women (including women with young children in their care and women performing certain forms of part-time service) are exempt under the Order; the appropriate authorities have power also to exempt women on account of exceptionally long hours of work; and, women, like men, can be exempted on medical grounds. Definite statistics are not available but it is likely that, having regard to the various exemptions, not more than one woman of the prescribed age out of every five is liable for enrolment by the local authority for Fire Guard duties.
    Sir T. Moore: In view of the welcome return of the Prime Minister, I do not propose to ask a Supplementary Question.

    R.A.F. VOLUNTEER RESERVE (OFFICERS' UNIFORM ALLOWANCE)
    Mr. Saltasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that former Royal Air Force officers who volunteered to serve again in the crisis of three years ago, and are now released for essential work, have to return one-third of the uniform allowance of £40; whether he is prepared to amend this rule; and whether he will make some restitution to officers who have already made such repayments?
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): No refund of outfit allowance is required of an officer of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve who is temporarily released from service. When, however, an officer is allowed to resign his commission before he has completed three years' effective service, refund may be required unless his departure from the Service is involuntary, such as in cases of invaliding or where work of national importance is being taken up at the request of a Government Department. The amount to be refunded is reduced by one-third for each complete year of service. I am not aware of any grounds for varying these arrangements but if my hon. Friend has any case of hardship in mind and will let me have particulars I will gladly look into it.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hannah.
    Mr. Ralph Etherton: Could I not ask a Supplementary Question on Question 59?
    Mr. Speaker: We must get on. There are many more Questions on the Order Paper.

    DISCHARGED SERVICE PERSONNEL (TRAINING)
    Mr. Hannahasked the Minister of Labour whether men discharged from the Forces in any way invalided have the right to such special training as may be for their benefit?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Tomlinson): Men discharged from the Forces on medical grounds or on account of disablement are eligible for training under the schemes operated by my Department. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the leaflet which has been issued on this subject.
    Mr. Hannah: Is that definitely the right of wounded soldiers?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Hannah: Thank you.

    HERRING INDUSTRY (WOMEN WORKERS)
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Minister of Labour whether arrangements have been made to permit women workers to gut the herrings now being caught off the Shetlands?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Boothby: Thank you.

    PACKAGING PAILS (CONTROL)
    Sir W. Davisonasked the Minister of Supply whether he will consider the removal of control or, failing removal, the simplification of control of packaging pails which are now controlled under Orders No. 5, 1942 (S.R. & O. No. 52), No. 6, 1942 (S.R. & O. No. 467), No. 7, 1942 (S.R. & O. No. 942), as further varied in the 4th Schedule to the latter Order, subject to additional Variations and Additions Nos. 1 and 2, as set out in the Schedule to the Order of 11th September, 1942?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Peat): Yes, Sir. These Orders are being consolidated and simplified.
    Sir W. Davison: Notwithstanding my personal joy at the safe return home of the Prime Minister I trust I may be allowed to ask why no explanatory memorandum was issued with the very complicated Order referred to in my Question other than the statement that control of packaging pails and certain other tin articles was essential to the life of the community?
    Mr. Peat: I cannot answer that question.
    Mr. Levy: May I ask the hon. Gentleman who cannot answer that question whether he is aware that the Home Secretary gave a pledge to the House that an explanatory memorandum would be attached to these complicated Orders, and that therefore if the Ministries complied with that, my hon. Friend would be able to answer the question?

    GIANT TYRES (ANTI-ADHESIVE PREPARATIONS)
    Mr. Stokesasked the Minister of Supply whether he will issue instructions that before fitting giant tyres, wheel rims are to be treated with an approved anti-adhesive preparation not containing paraffin, and that in their removal from the rims paraffin oil and petrol are not to be employed?
    Mr. Peat: No, Sir. While the use of anti-adhesive preparations is encouraged, I do not think there are sufficient grounds for making it obligatory.
    Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some firms are using a kind of anti-adhesive mixture which is highly deleterious to the quality of the rubber, and will he stop that?
    Mr. Peat: Yes, Sir.

    RADIO-ELECTRONICS (RESEARCH)
    Rear-Admiral Beamishasked the Minister of Production how the scope of research in radio electronics and expenditure thereon by the Post Office, the British Broadcasting Corporation, Cables and Wireless, radio manufacturers and other interests concerned with communications and radio compares with that of the American Bell Telephone Company, Radio Corporation, General Electric Company and other similar United States interests; and whether he proposes to

    537
    initiate comparative developments in this country?
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Production (Mr. Garro Jones): No details are available of corn-parable American expenditure, and in any case it would not be in the national interest to give particulars of the scope of our own research in the radio field or of the expenditure upon it. I am afraid, therefore, that it is not possible to make the comparison asked for. I should add that a vast amount of work has been and is being done in this field by Government Departments, by the B.B.C. and by industry. With regard to the last part of the Question, very close contact is maintained with similar agencies in the U.S.A. Generally, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the vital importance of this work is fully appreciated.
    Rear-Admiral Beamish: Is it not a fact that the American interests mentioned in the Question expend something like £7,000,000 annually on this research?
    Mr. Garro Jones: I do not know how much the American interests have expended, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we are not behind them in achievement.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN
    Colonel Thomas George Greenwell, for the Borough of The Hartlepools.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
"That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, Business in Committee of Supply may be taken after the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, and that the Proceedings of the Committee of Supply be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) for Two hours after the hour appointed for the interruption of Business."—[Mr. Eden.]

WAR SITUATION
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
As the statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proposes to make will take some little time, I propose to move the Adjournment of the House. But I understand that there is no general desire for a Debate, so as soon as my right hon. Friend has finished I will ask leave to withdraw the Motion and proceed with the ordinary Business of the day.
Mr. Stokes: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if he desires not to have a Debate to-day, he will give us an assurance that there will be a general Debate on the war as soon as the House resumes after Whitsuntide?
Mr. Eden: I can only give the assurance that we shall do our best to meet the desires of the House. I have taken soundings to-day and have learned without surprise that there is no general desire to have any Debate to-day.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): As the Allied war effort passes into the offensive phase and its scale and pace grow continually, more frequent consultations between The staffs and those concerned with the high control become necessary. In January, 1942, broad agreements on principle and on our joint or respective tasks were reached by our conferences in Washington. In the June meeting these took a sharper point, and, among other things, the operations in North Africa began to shape themselves. In October and November, action occurred. At Casablanca, in January of this year, the President and I, with the combined British and United States staffs, were able to survey new scenes and wider prospects. Plans and programmes were approved which have by no means yet

561
been accomplished. Nevertheless the progress of events became more rapid, and the Armies marched faster than had been foreseen. It became necessary to explore new fields. To have the initiative is an immense advantage; at the same time it is a heavy and exacting responsibility. Left to itself, opportunity may easily lead to divergency. Therefore, having consulted the President I thought it necessary at the beginning of May to go with our Chiefs of the Staff and a very large body of officers and secretaries—nearly 100—for a third time to Washington, in order that the success then impending in Tunisia should be examined and comprehended from a common viewpoint, and then turned to the best possible account.
At Washington the entire expanse of the world war, on which the mellow light of victory now begins to play, was laid open to the British and American leaders. We have shown that we can work together. We have shown that we can face disaster. We have still to show that we can keep ourselves at the height and level of successful events and be worthy of good fortune. Perhaps that may be the hardest task of all.
It would not be right, of course, for me to attempt to give, even in outline, an account of the decisions which were reached. All I can say is that we have done our best. A complete agreement about forward steps has been reached between the two Governments. There have been no sort of differences, such as occurred in the last war inevitably on account of the forces at work, between the politicians and the military men. I shall make no predictions as to what will happen in the future, and still less in the near future. All I can say is that Anglo-American policy, strategy, and economy were brought into full focus and punch in these 15 days' talks at Washington. The elaboration of modern war renders these prolonged discussions necessary. A conference lasting a day or two, such as sufficed in previous wars, is no longer sufficient to cover the ground and test the different propositions. As I said, very large numbers of officers, expert in their particular branches, are required at the various levels to be in close consultation. This gives the best chance to the troops, the sailors, and the airmen, wherever they may be, from Gibraltar to New Guinea
562
and from the Aleutian Islands to the Burma Road. In so vast and diverse a scene many questions of emphasis and priority arise, even where principles are agreed, and beneath them lie all those problems of transportation, of munitions industry, of the food of nations, of the distribution and application of resources, most of which questions can best be settled, and many of which can only be settled, at the summit of war direction, and which at that summit present themselves in fairly simple and yet at the same time in somewhat awe-inspiring forms.
After we had completed our task at Washington, I thought it well to go to North Africa, and I was very glad that the President decided to send along with me General Marshall, the Chief of the United States Army and Air Force, a man of singular eminence of mind and character. We flew together across the Atlantic to Gibraltar and Algiers, in order to deal more particularly and precisely on the spot with the problems of the Mediterranean theatre. There, for another week, we had the advantage of full discussions with General Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander, with General Alexander, Admiral Cunningham, Air Chief Marshal Tedder, Air Marshal Coningham, General Montgomery, General Spaatz, and General Bedell Smith, and other high British and United States officers directly concerned with the execution of plans which I can best describe as directed to the application upon the enemy of force in its most intense and violent forms. I can assure the House that the most complete concord and confidence prevailed at General Eisenhower's headquarters, and that the Forces of the two great nations of the English-speaking world are working together literally as if they were one single Army. I was told by officers of both countries that in the movement of troops or in the distribution of supplies no questions of national origin arise between the staff officers who are interleaved at every stage and tier of the vast organisation. It is just a question of what is the best thing to do—that and no more. The commanders are men in the full tide of successful experiment. They are proud of the troops they lead, and they are resolute in the plans they have made. In travelling about these armies, seeing perhaps 20,000 troops and airmen in a day, I sustained the impres-

563
sion of their extraordinary ardour and zeal to engage the enemy again at the earliest moment. Very fine Armies have come into being in this African war, and to be conscious of their spirit is an ennobling experience for a visitor. Cheered by remarkable victory after many bafflings and disappointments, the British and American Armies, and now the new French Army, have become a most powerful and finely-tempered weapon. They have full confidence in themselves and also in the High Command and in the general war direction. This is also true of the more numerous and powerful forces, British, Canadian, and American, which have formed and are forming in the United Kingdom.
It is evident that amphibious operations of peculiar complexity and hazard, on a large scale, are approaching. I can give no guarantee, any more than I have done in the past, of what will happen. I am sorry that a few days ago, in the press of travel and affairs, I let slip the expression, "Brilliant prospects lie before us" I should prefer to substitute the words, "Brighter and solid prospects lie before us." That, I think, would be more appropriate and becoming in such anxious days. Yet, all the same, I have good hopes that neither Parliament nor the Congress of the United States will find themselves ill-served by the Forces whether in the British Isles or on the African shore. At any rate, I can assure the House that on neither side, British or American, have any narrow or selfish motives entered into the common task. The rest, I must leave to action and to the march of events.
When I visited Tripoli in January, I had the pleasure of seeing the troops of the Eighth Army whom I had met beforehand in the now far-off Alamein position, before their victory and marvellous advance across the desert. I was particularly glad on this last occasion to meet men of the First Army who after a very hard time in the rainy winter have come into their own and who had the honour, with their comrades of the 2nd United States Army Corps, of striking the final blow.
The British losses in 'Tunisia have been severe. The Eighth Army, since they crossed the frontier from Tripolitania, have sustained about 11,500 casualties and the First Army about 23,500 casualties, in all
564
35,000 killed, missing and wounded during the campaign in the two British Armies.
The total number of prisoners taken who have passed through the cages of all the Allies, now amounts to over 248,000 men, an increase of 24,000 on the previous published total, and there must certainly have been 50,000 of the enemy killed, making a total loss of about 300,000 men to the enemy in Tunisia alone. More than half of these men are Germans. In fact, of the 37,000 prisoners taken by the United States 2nd Corps—actually it was more of the size of an Army than a Corps—33,000 were Germans. The French 19th Corps also led tens of thousands of German and Italian captives to the rear and must have felt that after all their country had gone through, they were once again reliving the great days of Foch and Clemenceau. All this takes no account of the very heavy toll taken of the German and Italian forces as they crossed over the seas, or passed through the air. This toll was taken by the Allied Air Forces and by the British submarines, cruisers, destroyers and motor torpedo boats. These British naval forces at the same time cast an impassable barrier between the enemy in Tunisia and all prospects of escape. During the later phases, a continuous patrol was maintained in forces which would have prevented any attempt at escape except by individuals. In fact, I believe only 638 persons have escaped, and these for the most part by air, from this scene of surrender.
We cannot doubt that both Stalingrad and Tunisia are the greatest military disasters that have ever befallen Germany in all the wars she has made, and they are many. There is no doubt from the statements of captured Generals that Hitler expected his Tunisian army to hold out at least until August and that this was the view and intention of the German High Command. The suddenness of the collapse of these great numbers of brave and skilful fighting men, with every form of excellent equipment, must be regarded as significant and in a sense characteristic of the German psychology which was shown after Jena and also at the very end of the last war. Though this fact should certainly be noted and weighed, no undue expectations should be based upon it. We are prepared to win this war by hard fighting, and if necessary by hard fighting alone.
In years of peace, the peoples of the British Commonwealth and those of the

565
United States are an easy-going folk, wishing to lead a free life, with active politics and other opportunities of innocent diversion and of national self-improvement. They do not covet anything from others, perhaps because they have enough themselves, and they have often failed to keep a good look-out upon their own safety. They have many martial qualities, but they certainly do not like drill. Nevertheless, when they are attacked and assailed and forced in defence of life and liberty to make war and to subject all their habits of life to war conditions and to war discipline, they are not incapable, if time is granted to them—and time was granted to them—, of making the necessary transformation. Indeed, a great many of them are taking to it with increasing zest and zeal. Such nations do not become exhausted by war. On the contrary, they get stronger as it goes on. It is an error on the part of certain neutrals to suppose that the previously unprepared and ill-armed Anglo-Saxon democracies will emerge from this war weakened and prostrate even though victorious. On the contrary, we shall be stronger than ever before in force, and I trust also in faith. It may well be that those guilty races who trumpeted the glories of war at the beginning will be extolling the virtues of peace before the end. It would certainly seem right, however, that those who fix, on their own terms, the moment for beginning wars should not be the same men who fix, on their own terms, the moment for ending them. These observations are of a general character but not without their particular application.
I must not neglect to make it clear that the operations now impending in the European theatre have been fitted into their proper place in relation to the general war. I am very sorry that we have not yet been able to bring into council Marshal Stalin, or other representatives of our great Ally Russia, which is bearing the heaviest burden and paying by far the highest price in blood and life. But I can assure the House that taking some of the weight off Russia, giving more speedy and effective aid to China and giving a stronger measure of security to our beloved Australia and New Zealand, these were never absent for one moment from our thoughts and aims.
This war is so universal and world wide that it would take several hours to make
566
an exposition of what is happening in the various theatres. Each of the Allies naturally sees these theatres from a different angle and in a somewhat different relation. We British must continue to place the anti-U-boat war first, because it is only by conquering the U-boat that we can live and act. The might of America is deployed far over the Pacific and is laying an ever stronger grip on the outlying defences of Japan and offering at every moment to the Japanese fleet the supreme challenge of sea-power. The Russian Armies, as I mentioned to the Congress the other day, are in deadly grapple with what we estimate to be 190 German and 28 satellite divisions along their 2,000 miles front. It is here that the greatest battles seem to impend.
Then there is the war in the air. The steady wearing down of the German and Japanese air forces is proceeding remorselessly, The enemy, who thought that the air would be their weapon of victory, are now finding in it instead the first cause of their ruin. It is necessary for me to make it plain that, so far as the British Government and the Governments of the Dominions, and also the Governments of the United States and of the Russian Soviet Republic are concerned, nothing will turn us from our endeavour and intention to accomplish the complete destruction of our foes by bombing from the air in addition to all other methods. Loud and lamentable outcries are being made by the enemy now that this form of warfare by which they thought to obtain the mastery of the world has turned markedly to their disadvantage. This outcry will only be regarded by us as a very satisfactory proof of the growing efficiency of our attack. Compared with this time last year we British alone can now drop more than double the weight of bombs at 1,500 miles range there and back.
In the summer of last year, as Minister of Defence, I set on foot a policy of increasing our bomber effort, which, of course, entailed certain sacrifices in other directions. All that is now coming into hand. At the same time we took the measures which have thrown the long-range aircraft—the very long-range aircraft—the V.L.R., as they are called—, effectively in to the anti U-boat struggle. All this is now being brought to bear. The month of May is, from every point of view, the best month we have ever had

567
in the anti U-boat war since the United States was attacked by Japan, Germany and Italy. At that time we gained much greater combined resources, but we exposed much larger targets. We made at that time a budget of sinkings and buildings on which we knew we could survive indefinitely. The sinkings have been a good deal less than we apprehended, and the buildings have more than made good the prodigious programme undertaken by the American nation. This month of May has been one of the very best for the imports carried safely into this Island since the end of 1941. Our combined new building has exceeded our losses by more than 3 to 1. This first week in June could not possibly be taken as a criterion, but, as a matter of fact, it is the best ever for many, many months past.
During the last few months the enemy has made very heavy attacks on our convoys. These have given us the opportunity of hitting him hard in open battle. There are so many U-boats employed now that it is almost impossible not to run into one or other of these great screens of U-boats which are spread out, and therefore you have to fight your way through. But there is no reason why we should regret that. On the contrary, it is around the convoys that the U-boats can best be destroyed. New weapons and new methods and the close co-ordination of effort between surface and air escort have enabled us to inflict casualties which have surpassed all previous records. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty made a statement of a very reassuring character upon this subject the other day, and I can only repeat that, in May, for the first time our killings of U-boats substantially outnumbered the U-boat output. That may be a fateful milestone. The Germans seem to be staking their hopes upon the U-boat war, as we may judge by the appeals made to them. They are encouraged to bear the evils—"terrors," they call it, perhaps not an ill-chosen word—of the air bombardment by the hopes that on the sea the U-boats are taking their revenge. If it should be made clear that this hope has failed them, they may be seriously disappointed; and they are people who, when seriously disappointed, do not always find the resources to confront approaching disaster, once their reason tells them that it is inevitable. Again I say, I
568
make the observation in passing but do not let us build on such deductions.
It would be foolish to assume that the good results of a single month are a guarantee of a continuing process. We may have set-backs, though I have always looked forward to this summer as being a period which would be favourable to us. Moreover, of course, the enemy may decline battle, or he may look only for the most tempting opportunities. In this case we shall have fewer killings but more imports, and the freer movement of troops and munitions will be possible to all the various theatres. I must say I feel confident that the U-boat war will not stand between the United Nations and their final victory, while all the time the air war will grow in weight and severity. I might well speak with more emphasis upon this point, but it is prudent to forbear.
It happened at the time when I was in Algiers that General de Gaulle and his friends arrived, and I thought it would be well if my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary were on the spot in case it should prove in our power to help. We did not in fact intervene at all in these tense discussions between Frenchmen. But, like General Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander, we watched them closely and vigilantly in the light of British and United States interests and of the well-being of our Armies in North Africa. We all rejoiced that agreement was made and that the French National Committee of Liberation was set up and constituted as the single and sole authority over all Frenchmen seeking to free France from the German yoke. When we met these seven men by and around whom the new French Cabinet has been formed we could not but be struck by the many different aspects of French energy and capacity to resist which they represented and also by their high personal qualities. The gravest responsibility lies upon these men, and opportunity shines brightly before them. They have only to act together in good faith and loyalty to one another, to set aside sectional or personal interests and keep all their hatreds for the enemy—they have only to do this to help regain for France her inheritance, and in so doing to become themselves the inheritors of the gratitude of future generations of Frenchmen. The formation of this Committee with its collective responsibility supersedes the situation created by the correspondence between General de Gaulle and my-

569
self in 1940. Our dealings, financial and otherwise, will henceforward be with the Committee as a whole. There is a further and larger question, namely, the degree of recognition of this Committee as representative of France. This question requires consideration from the British and United States Governments, but if things go well, I should hope that a solution satisfactory to all parties may shortly be reached.
Let me now sum up the two predominant impressions I have sustained from this journey. The first is the spirit, quality and organisation of the British and Allied Armies in North Africa. The second is the intimacy and strength of the ties now uniting the British and United States Governments and the British and American peoples. All sorts of divergences, all sorts of differences of outlook and all sorts of awkward little jars necessarily occur as we roll ponderously forward together along the rough and broken road of war. But none of these makes the slightest difference to our ever-growing concert and unity, there are none of them that cannot be settled face to face by heart-to-heart talks arid patient argument. My own relations with the illustrious President of the United States have become in these years of war those of personal friendship and regard, and nothing will ever happen to separate us in comradeship and partnership of thought and action while we remain responsible for the conduct of affairs.
The reason why I have not had to make a longer speech to-day is that I have already given to the joint Session of the Congress of the United States the statement which I should have made to this House on the victory in Tunisia had I been in this country. That, I think, is a valid explanation. Certainly, when I found myself walking into that august Assembly, the free Congress of the most powerful community in the world, and when I gave them, exactly as I would do in this House, a businesslike, stocktaking survey of the war and of our joint interests, even touching upon controversial matters or matters of domestic controversy over there, and when I thought of all our common history and of the hopes that lie before us, I felt that this was an age of memorable importance to mankind. For there can be no doubt that whatever world organisation is brought into being after this war, that
570
organisation must be the richer and the stronger if it is founded on the friendship and fraternal relations and the deep understanding prevailing and now growing between the British Commonwealth of Nations and the United States of America.
I have one thing more to say before I sit down. I must acknowledge with gratitude the extraordinary kindness with which I have been treated in the House and out of doors throughout the land. That is a very great help in these days of continuing crisis and storm. Let me, in return, record the fact that this House, a democratic institution, based upon universal suffrage, which has preserved its functions and authority intact and undiminished during the war and has shown that it can change, correct and sustain Governments with equal constancy of purpose, has proved itself a foundation and an instrument for the waging of successful war and for the safety of the State never surpassed in modern or ancient times.
Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Let me, in a few words, say that I am sure the House and the country warmly welcome the safe return of the Prime Minister and earnestly hope that the decisions made will lead to larger and ever-growing achievements. While I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that there will be little purpose served in continuing the discussion to-day, I would ask him to bear in mind that there is a strong feeling that at some convenient date there should be a full-dress Debate on the war situation.
Mr. A. Bevan: I would like if I may to reinforce the statement which has just been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). I also wish, if I may be permitted, to congratulate the Prime Minister upon his safe return and to felicitate him upon the last few sentences of his speech. The House of Commons last year made its own contribution towards the successes we have, achieved in North Africa, and the House would desire to make its own contribution to the events which are about to take place in Europe. Therefore, I want to suggest to the Leader of the House that immediately after the Whitsun Recess an opportunity

571
should be afforded to the House to have a general Debate upon the war situation, because it must not be thought that as we have said nothing during the Prime Minister's absence we have no contribution to make, or any observations to put forward, upon the conduct of the war. Indeed, many of us have some guidance to give to the Government on this matter at the present time—guidance which may not be acceptable to the Government but which will, I hope, be as fruitful as the other guidance which some of us have given in the past. While felicitating the Prime Minister upon his safe return and congratulating him upon the joint achievements of the House of Commons and the Government, I hope that when the House re-assembles after the Whitsun Recess we shall have a full opportunity of reviewing the whole war situation.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. James Stuart): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY [9TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1943

  SCOTTISH HOUSING AND HEALTH
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a further sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with Housing and Health in Scotland, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1944, namely:

  Class V., Vote 15, Department of Health for Scotland

  £10

  Class X., Vote 18, Department of Health for Scotland (War Services)

  £10

  £"

  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): Whatever else may be in dispute or contention to-day, there will be general agreement that the health services in Scotland are standing up splendidly to the stresses and strains of
  572
  war. When social standards deteriorate it is usually women and children who feel the first impact of that deterioration. But in Scotland in 1942 the death-rate for females was the lowest in our history, and the records of school entrants in Glasgow for last year show definite increases in the weights and heights of both boys and girls. There has been a remarkable and steady increase in well-being since the middle of last century. This is borne out quite clearly, I think, by the mortality statistics. If we compare the figures for the decade 1851 to 1860 with the figures for last year, we see that per 100,000 of the population smallpox deaths have fallen from 35 to one; measles from 43 to three; scarlet fever from 98 to one; diphtheria from 44 to six. Indeed, a recent study of diphtheria statistics shows an even more remarkable reduction in what is called the case mortality rate. In 1900 the rate was 19.9 per cent.—that is to say, one out of every five notified cases of diphtheria died. There has been a steady reduction ever since, until last year only one out of every 36 died. Deaths through whooping cough per 100,000 of the population have fallen from 72 to two; diarrhoea from 106 to 22; bronchitis and pneumonia from 201 to 110; and even the tuberculosis figure—although it is now giving us serious cause for anxiety—has fallen from 360 to 84. Deaths from typhus and enteric have been almost wiped out in the same period. Infantile mortality has been halved. Infantile mortality was 14 per thousand better last year than in the previous one. With the single exception of 1939, when the rate was only fractionally lower, the figure for 1942 was the lowest on record. Still we have to face the fact that our infantile mortality rates are higher than they are South of the Border.
  Tuberculosis is the chief black spot on our health statistics. It was halved between the two wars but is again unfortunately on the increase. The notifications for pulmonary tuberculosis have increased by 31 per cent. since the war began, and, no doubt, the mass radiography experiments which we hope to inaugurate this summer or autumn will throw up other incipient cases. It is fortunate, however, I think, that these incipient cases can be more easily treated, and with much greater hope of success, just because they are discovered at an early stage. Meantime we have allocated 800 additional

  573
  beds in emergency hospitals for the treatment of T.B., and we have about 500 cases awaiting nursing staff. In order to induce patients to go early for treatment, maintenance allowances on a standard scale, and without any test of means, are being provided. These maintenance allowances range from 39s. per week for male applicants, with allowances for dependants in addition. There are also discretionary allowances, at the option of the local authorities, for exceptional liabilities. Every effort must be made to relieve patients from domestic anxiety.
  In Scotland we have inaugurated a system whereby, through arrangements with voluntary hospitals, we have succeeded in wiping off patients on the waiting lists of these hospitals to the number of 15,000. Previous to the war we were exceedingly short of hospital accommodation. The Committee on Health Services reported alarming figures of shortage, but the Government's emergency hospitals have provided an opportunity for experiment whereby patients on the waiting list of these voluntary hospitals can be treated at once. I had meetings with the voluntary hospitals authorities, and, after adequate discussion, they agreed to take part in the scheme. They pay a small fee of 30s. per case to the State hospitals, but there is no charge to the patient. There are 35 voluntary hospitals playing up splendidly under this arrangement, and a vast mass of human suffering and pain has undoubtedly been eliminated.
  I am particularly pleased also at the success of what has been called the Clyde Basin experiment and is now called the supplementary medical service. Patients are referred by panel doctors, or from works medical officers, for specialist examination to the State regional medical service. All the most modern appliances and diagnostic skill are available, and, where necessary, the patients are treated, gratis of course, in one of the State emergency hospitals. We have had 3,700 people, mostly young workers, dealt with down to the end of May, and the scheme, which in effect supplies a specialist medical service gratis to the working population, has been warmly welcomed by the doctors as well as by the patients. Many young workers have been saved from complete breakdown by the timely intervention of this scheme. I fervently trust that it will not be regarded
  574
  as a mere temporary war-time expedient but will in some way or other be permanently grafted on to our health services. In effect it is a nationally supplied specialist medical service superimposed on the top of the panel doctor service, and provides specialist treatment in hospital, and in convalescent homes if necessary, for workers where diagnosis is difficult for the panel doctor, or where it is fatigue or the beginning of some vague form of disease from which the patient is suffering.
  There is another experiment, at Gleneagles, a one-time luxury hotel which has been adapted as a fitness centre. It is called by the ugly word "reconditioning," but it is a fitness centre for injured miners. I advise hon. Members, if they are ever in the neighbourhood, to go and see it at work. I most fervently hope that the service there will not stop at coal mining but that the great experiment, which has already been highly successful, will be extended to other crafts and trades.
  There is still another experiment about which I should like to say a word. We took a thousand men—there were some women among them, but mostly men—who were invalided from the Forces, and put one of our Department's medical officers on to following up these cases to see how they fared in civil life—to see if they had conditions of employment appropriate to their physique. I should like to thank Sir John Fraser and other well-know consultants for their gratis advice and assistance. It appeared from the test examinations that about 20 per cent. of these invalided ex-Service men were trying to do work quite unsuited to their physical condition, which, if persisted in, would have meant a complete breakdown, and we have been able, in consultation with the Ministry of Labour, not entirely in every case but in large numbers of these cases, to secure that the men get employment more suitable to their physical condition.
  With regard to housing, I am well-aware of the anxiety that is felt among all classes and sections of the community. I share that anxiety. For 30 years I have taken part in struggles and have promoted schemes for an adequate supply of healthy, sanitary, comfortable and artistic homes for the Scots people. Now the stern necessities of war have temporarily suspended, or at all events retarded, the steady provision of these houses. We had

  575
  actually been making a great effort in rehousing between the wars. Since 1919 there have been built 352,000 houses, that is, 30 per cent. of the total number in the country. Now, however, there is a diminishing labour force. During the war we have combed every available source to get the necessary skilled personnel for the completion of houses under construction, for the restoration of air raid damaged houses and for the maintenance of existing housing structures and fabrics. Services such as Air Raid Precautions and the National Fire Service are being carefully examined to see how far they can contribute building trade workers towards meeting the housing needs of our people. During the year all possible sources of building trade workers have been combed out, and the number of building trade workers on air raid shelters have been diminished by over two-thirds. Demolition squads and some other services must of necessity have some skilled tradesmen in their ranks. Again there are some materials in short supply. There are timber, steel, and certain non-ferrous metals. Nevertheless, since the outbreak of this war we have completed the construction of 31,619 houses. At the beginning of the present year our local authorities had still over 5,000 houses under construction, some of them suspended, and I arranged with my colleagues that we should get an additional allocation of 1,000 workers in the building trades to help in the speedier completion of these houses.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Did the right hon. Gentleman get them:
  Mr. Johnston: Yes. There are parts of the country also where private enterprise houses have been suspended, and, on my representations, the Ministry of Works are now making arrangements in suitable cases to give labour facilities for the completion of these houses, If the proprietors are unable or inwilling to face the present costs of completion, it may be necessary for the Government to requisition and to complete them. Again, in Scotland we have seven large civil defence hostels so constructed that they might be quickly divided and adapted as temporary family houses. Some of these hostels could provide about 100 houses each, and I am now considering adapting one of them for a particularly difficult housing area.
  Mr. Stephen: Where is it?
  Mr. Johnston: It is on Clydeside, but in advance of my negotiations with the Treasury I prefer not to be more precise. Since 1926 over 32,000 houses have been reconstructed under the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, and 2,000 more houses are even now under re-construction. Then we have permission to authorise the building of another 1,000 houses in Scotland. For 204 of these estimates have already been accepted and approved and local authorities have been authorised to go ahead.
  Mr. Buchanan: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea of what the estimates are?
  Mr Johnston: I could, but I put it to the hon. Member that if I were to give in public the prices per square foot which had been accepted, it would be regarded as a target figure for other possible tenderers. While I am perfectly happy to give any hon. Gentleman the figures privately, I am advised that in the public interest it would be highly disadvantageous to give the figures that we have accepted because of the effect it might have upon other contractors or tenderers.
  Mr. Buchanan: I am sure the trade know the prices. The point in my mind is that we have a public duty here to see that we are not being exploited, and we cannot carry that out unless we have some idea of what house contractors are charging.
  Mr. Johnston: The hon. Gentleman's first statement that the trade know these prices is not correct. Of the figures for the 204 houses, 200 are not tenders which have come from the trade at all. They are direct labour estimates, and, therefore, the trade cannot know them. I would beg the hon. Gentleman to believe me when I say that we are acting only in the public interest in refusing to disclose the figures at this stage while the tenders are coming in.
  Mr. Buchanan: I am not satisfied with that explanation.
  Mr. Johnston: I am merely giving my view. On these 1,000 new war-time houses there is an extra grant of £100 per house in urban areas and £200 in rural areas. We are doing everything we can to encourage local authorities in these

  577
  matters. I am sure that it is possible to have these houses built at a reasonable figure per square foot, but again I would plead with the Committee not to press us to-day for precise figures because of the effect that it might have upon potential tenderers in other schemes.
  As an emergency measure under the Defence Regulations, we have authorised local authorities to repair and to make habitable some 500 houses which have been previously condemned. Local authorities have also been authorised to rent 1,100 unoccupied houses in addition to 400 requisitioned houses for homeless and evacuated persons or war workers. In some of the Clydeside towns in addition I have authorised the local authorities to take possession of empty shops and offices. In all these cases we have offered to give them 100 per cent. grants towards the cost of reconstruction of those shops and offices which can be suitably converted into dwelling houses.
  Mr. Buchanan: What advantage has been taken of that?
  Mr. Johnston: Not enough, but I will give some figures. Some of these places had once been dwelling houses and had been converted into shops. We now ask, when the shops are empty, that they should be reconverted into dwelling houses. In Glasgow this has meant 81 new houses at a construction cost on an average of £55 per house. They were not all shops and offices; some of them had been houses at one time and another. Repairs of war damaged houses used up a great amount of our building trade labour activities during the year. It is important that hon. Members should be reminded of this. Down to May, 1943, minor repairs—that is repairs bigger than, say, the mending of broken glass—had been made in over 67,000 cases and major repairs in over 5,000. Where disputes arose as to what might be fittingly paid for the damaged houses I am happy to say that they have been settled under the procedure already announced in the House under which we appointed men of skill to decide. No appeals have reached me against any of their decisions.
  I can say nothing to-day on the question of furnished lets. It is an exceedingly difficult subject. There are cases undoubtedly where what I can only describe as extortionate charges are being made
  578
  for sub-lets of furnished dwellings or rooms in furnished dwellings. The variety of the furnishing or what is called furnishing—for in some cases it consists only of an old table, a chair and a wisp of linoleum—is so wide that it is difficult to get a remedy. The Lord Advocate took proceedings under the Rent Restriction Acts for extortionate overcharging, but the Court of Session has held that in these cases not only must we prove high prices but there must be some threat in addition. Unfurnished lets are protected up to £90, but furnished lets are a most difficult problem. All I can say is that the Government are closely examining the question of the practicability of dealing with the subject of furnished lets in the hope that, however we deal with it, we will not diminish the supply of bona fide furnished lettings which are providing accommodation for such a large number of our people.
  As to the future, we are doing everything possible to prepare plans for instant action on a large scale immediately men and materials are available. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is Chairman of our Housing Advisory Committee. It is now inquiring into such questions as the design, lay-out, furnishing and distribution of houses. When these three remits are completed I hope to provide them with further remits to which I trust they will give urgent attention. We are ensuring that every local authority in Scotland will have in its ownership land for at least one year's building programme whenever peace comes, and I hope that as and when the labour position in other directions eases—and that may be long before the end of the war so far as older labour is concerned—it will be possible to arrange in the most difficult areas that the local authorities will proceed with a limited amount of work upon roads, sewers and water mains for their housing scheme. So far as I can ascertain, these are the facts about health and housing. It is for this House and the country to judge whether, given the limiting conditions of a war in which the nation is struggling for survival, the administration of our great health services in Scotland has during the year been competently and efficiently discharged.
  Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: A good many of my colleagues in Scotland wish to speak in this Debate, so I intend to intervene for only

  579
  a few minutes to deal with one aspect of this very important housing problem, and that is the modernisation or reconditioning of existing properties. I was interested to see that only a few days ago, at a conference of local authorities in Edinburgh, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave some prominence to this point. The question of reconditioning is in the main confined to the larger cities and burghs where, as all who represent the urban areas know, there has been a lamentable deterioration in great tracts of tenement property. From having been well found and good dwelling places they have now fallen into being the vilest of slums. That is serious because there is no remedy except to pull down very large blocks of buildings; but prevention is better than cure, and there are considerable blocks of tenement buildings in all the cities which are externally sound and adequate and could be made habitable for a good many years to come if internal reconditioning could be carried out.
  I appreciate that this is an extremely difficult problem. During the time when I had the advantage of serving on Edinburgh Town Council I was very much interested in reconditioning, and I studied the valuation rolls for some of the central areas of the town. I found that in a single building there might be a dozen or more owners and very often trust estates held a large block of tenements or part of a block. Therefore there were legal and financial impediments in the way of taking action. If I remember aright, the Whitson Report of 1933 suggested that a subsidy might be made available for reconditioning, but for reasons which were partly, I think, financial but mainly political, that proposal was never adopted, and to the best of my knowledge the only Statute dealing with reconditioning of houses in urban areas is Section 20 of the Act of 1935 and that section is permissive and does not give any financial assistance to local authorities who wish to carry out reconditioning on an ambitious scale or indeed any scale at all. For all practical purposes that Section is a dead letter.
  I have said that I recognise this is a very difficult problem, and I am not asking the Government to produce any cut-and-dried scheme straight away, but I would remind the Secretary of State that
  580
  a year ago he appointed a Scottish Housing Advisory Committee, composed of a large number of men and women with experience in housing and health questions, and I would ask him to set up a sub-Committee of that body for the express purpose of examining the problem of reconditioning or modernisation and to issue a Memorandum or White Paper setting out the facts and what remedies are open. I feel this to be one aspect of post-war housing that we must deal with if we do not wish to see a great many more slums developing. I ask my right hon. Friend to give sympathetic consideration to this suggestion.
  Mr. Leonard: I think all hon. Members will be fully appreciative of the figures given by the Secretary of State showing the progress in health over a good number of years, and I do not propose to go into that aspect of the matter to-day, because I think there is no gainsaying the fact that if there is one factor more than another that is conducive to good health, it is housing. I shall never forget the telling details that were placed before us when I was a member of the Glasgow Corporation, showing the differences in weight and in height of boys from three specific schools who had come from one-apartment, two-apartment and three-apartment houses. They could be regarded as having had something of the same type of food, and the deduction was made that while their food and the other factors in their lives were the same the differences in weight and stature were due to the variations in air space available in their homes.
  To my mind Glasgow is not very different from any other towns, but as I see it there are four problems connected with housing which are more clamant in Glasgow than, perhaps, elsewhere. There can be no denial that over-crowding is one of the paramount problems, and the councillors of the City of Glasgow cannot satisfy the mass of appeals which are made to them. At the same time it is no answer to people to tell them that they are up against a wall except for an appeal to the Scottish Department of Health, and that they cannot be given houses if houses are not there. There is in Glasgow a type of house which I call the uninhabitable, or at any rate the house that should not be habitable. It exists

  581
  there in larger numbers than in most other towns in Scotland or in England. Then there are certain condemned areas in the city which call for immediate attention. Last, but certainly by no means least, there is an extensive list of newly-married persons who are entitled to some attention. The list is large at present, but it will be a very much larger one when hostilities end and young men come back to take their places in industry. To my mind Glasgow is peculiar in the extent and the urgency of those four aspects of the housing problem.
  On the question of planning I read recently of some very effective arrangements being made to deal with London. While I am glad that many towns have not suffered as London and some of the other towns in England have suffered, it may be that the extent of the destruction in certain places may make planning there a little easier from the point of view of laying out better towns. Planning is of no use unless it is long-term planning, and planning does not mean only roads, institutions, housing and parks. It means an endeavour to conceive of the social and economic changes which may take place in a large city. Scotland is a nation that has its own ideas, if not unmindful of the advantages it can receive from others, but just because Scotland has suffered so many deficiencies in the past the awakening that is evident in Scotland to-day will possibly insist on changes being made with greater speed. Without any desire to hurt the chances of other cities, Glasgow will call for expedition in the matter of dealing with her needs.
  I never think of planned housing without bearing in mind that there is a definite desire on the part of the people to see that industry shall not in future be allowed to perambulate about the country as it has in the past. There can be no real planning of the lives of the people from the point of view of their housing requirements unless we can see with some certainty—if not altogether accurately, with some certainty—what the industrial pattern of the country is going to be. In saying that I do not wish it to be understood that I am in favour of building houses up against works and factories. I definitely reject the idea that houses are to be looked upon as hostels for the workers in industry. That is far from my conception of housing. Moreover, I believe the
  582
  statement that people must live near their work takes no account of future developments in the transport system. There is no reason why efficient and comfortable travelling facilities should not make great inroads into the alleged desire of people to live very close to their work. I do not look upon housing as a necessary adjunct to the exact location of large groups of industries.
  Next I want to show what Glasgow has done in preparing for the future. As at April of this year Glasgow Corporation had completed 53,500 houses under the various Housing Acts. Naturally there was considerable interruption in the progress during the last four years. For a considerable part of that period of four years there was, naturally, a lack of thought for the future, because nobody was thinking very much then of what advance could be made, but Glasgow now visualises the possibility of building another 80,000 to 90,000 houses, even 100,000 houses. That is a big enough problem in all conscience for the time being. I shall not go into harrowing details, such as could be given by all hon. Members, because I am conscious that the representatives of the Government know what the position is as well as we do. I am told that the peace-time production of Glasgow Corporation was round about 400 houses a month. In December, 1942, it had gone down to 150 houses a month, and to-day it is 65 or less houses per month. Conditions are not conducive to the production of houses, and therefore I attach no blame to anyone responsible for providing houses. But the Secretary of State ought to take timely action to assist any preparations or action taken by Glasgow Corporation to meet the needs of which I have spoken.
  First there is the pre-requisite of land. I should like to be assured that action has been taken to safeguard local authorities against land speculation. Something should be done to see that land speculation does not in the slightest degree hinder the activities of local authorities. Glasgow Corporation have already acquired land for 26,000 houses. If they can—and I trust they will be able to—at the earliest opportunity reopen the negotiations that were interrupted by the Treasury at the beginning of the war, they may acquire land for another 10,000 houses. There is the possibility that that number might

  583
  suffice, but, if not, we desire to see Glasgow and other cities safeguarded against the activities of the gentlemen to whom I have referred. I am informed by competent people in Glasgow that preparedness has advanced so far as to permit of an immediate start upon about 10,000 houses. As the restraint upon materials and finance is eased, that can be stepped up effectively and speedily.
  As to speed, I wonder whether detailed attention has been given to the processes of prefabrication that are now available. We have satisfied ourselves that Glasgow's own method of prefabrication is capable of standing up to what is claimed for it. I have seen houses erected by prefabrication in poured concrete, and they compare favourably with anything else. If we can get construction of houses by prefabrication methods with slabs of concrete from 8 to 10 ft. square, an avenue is opened that gives considerable hope for the future and the possibility of greater adaptability of labour in keeping flowing units to the sites selected for house erection. The extent of the housing problem is so great all over the country, and particularly in Scotland, that building operatives might well countenance without any danger something being done in the way of prefabrication of houses, and might allow intermingling of labour of a suitable type.
  Glasgow covers 39,725 acres. Roughly, between 11,000 and 12,000 acres are covered with open spaces, institutions and industries, thus leaving 28,275 acres for houses. The housing committee of Glasgow Corporation endeavoured to ascertain, and has been guided as to what might be done by plotting out, the types of houses that would meet the requirements of the population. Speaking approximately, the population of the city could be housed mostly within the city boundaries, even though 15 per cent. of the houses were of the flatted or tenemental type of a density of about 30 to the acre and 85 per cent. were of terraced or cottage houses, at 10 to the acre. On that basis, the Corporation feel that it would be possible to house Glasgow's population within the boundaries, but a reduction of density might cause them to go outside the boundaries. Those figures display conditions more favourable than exist at the present time. In the factory or industrial dis-
  584
  tricts there is a density of from 136 to 95 houses per acre, and in what is called the Western or middle-class districts of from 48 to 45 houses per acre. I am well aware that approved town planning schemes have a ceiling of 36 houses to the acre. If we are really in earnest in the matter, by the application of prefabrication, due regard being paid to the preparations already made in the provision of land and other elements necessary for production, Glasgow could go ahead to a considerable extent, and speedily, after the war. I would like to say more on the subject of building materials, but the innovations in these things are pretty well known to hon. Members.
  If there is any field in which we can cut adrift from the old methods, finance is one of them. I have here some details of the building-up of the rents of houses in Glasgow during the year in which the war started. It states that the average rent paid in the year the war started for all Glasgow Corporation houses was £32, and proceeds:
  "Of this sum, no less than £14 12S. 6d. was paid in interest charges or equal to 45·7 per cent. of the rent paid. Sinking fund for the redemption of the debt accounted for £4 16s. or 15 per cent. of the rent paid. The total debt charges on a rent of £32 is therefore £19 8s. 6d., or equal to 60·7 per cent."
  That is atrocious, and I do not think it should be tolerated in the future. Surely this country can see to it that different methods are applied to meeting the housing needs of the whole population of Glasgow. Other parts of the world have shown how it can be done. I would suggest special housing bonds that could be ultimately cancelled out by the payment of rates and taxes. That method is far preferable to the paying of interest in perpetuity in the manner which I have displayed. Good houses will be provided in the main by a reduction of rents. One of the methods is by reducing rents, and thus taking off the shoulders of the people who pay those rents the incubus of the 60 per cent. mentioned in my illustration.
  Glasgow is in line with the desire of the Secretary of State and of the Government to make a frontal onslaught on this housing question. The peculiarities of Glasgow show that the city is a cameo in the general picture and requires special consideration. I have endeavoured to show that the City of Glasgow has its own house in order. The houses are on

  585
  order and delivery can come if the Government will pay attention to the needs of the City.
  Mr. Gallacher: May I draw attention to the deplorable evidence of absenteeism in this Chamber and to the fact that many Members who have been criticising the miners for absenteeism are not present at this Debate?
  The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): That is not a point of Order.
  Commander Galbraith: I am sure that all hon. Members will have been very pleased to hear the report on the health situation in Scotland and interested in the various experiments that the Minister is carrying out. We wish him well in the continuation of those experiments. I do not want to follow him in talking of the health of the people of Scotland, but I should like to say a few words about housing. The erection of houses is almost impossible in view of war conditions. The Secretary of State is doing a great deal, but none will ever be satisfied that he is doing enough. He is pressing the Minister of Labour for more people to work at housing during the war.
  It is not that aspect which I wish to consider but the future of housing in Scotland. There is no more important factor connected with the raising of the social standard of our people than housing. Together with education, housing is the very foundation of social betterment. Without adequate housing it seems that we are committed to a battle against squalor, dirt, misery and disease. Thousands of our womenfolk in Scotland have been fighting that battle for more than a generation. Many of them have been worn out by mere drudgery in endeavouring to keep a decent home and to bring up their children respectably. We must stop that once and for all, and that will be done only by the most intensive effort. Before we set about it, it is as well that we should all personally realise exactly what the nature of the problem is, and, for that purpose, like my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard), I would take the example of the conditions which exist in the City of Glasgow.
  In Glasgow to-day there are 281,000 houses, of which 35,000 are single apartments and 110,000 of the room and
  586
  kitchen type. Practically none of those houses have baths or sanitary accommodation except what is common to the inhabitants of four or more houses. How people can maintain any reasonable standard of decency under those conditions passes my comprehension, but the fact is that they do. If we are to remedy that state of affairs and bring our housing up to the standard laid down in the Act of 1935, we shall require at least 100,000 houses. That is the official figure from the Corporation of Glasgow. In the 20 years prior to the outbreak of war, 63,000 houses were built. The hon. Member for St. Rollox mentioned 53,000, but I think he meant the houses actually built by the Corporation and did not take into account 10,000 houses built by subsidy and private enterprise. The building of 63,000 houses in 20 years was at the average rate of 3,150 houses per year, and if we were to continue at that rate, 32 years would elapse before we had made up the leeway. The situation is considerably worse than that. When a survey was made in 1935, the Corporation estimated that they would require 65,000 houses. The estimate is now 100,000, an increase of 35,000 houses, perhaps due to dilapidation in the period of seven years, If dilapidation continues at that rate, at the end of 32 years we shall be far worse off, because we shall require an additional 160,000 houses to bring matters up to the standard laid down in 1935. No one can contemplate such a situation with equanimity. Houses must be completed in every possible manner.
  It is unfortunate that political considerations have entered into the matter of housing in Glasgow, one party believing in private enterprise and another party in direct labour. I am not discussing the merits of either of those systems, but I say that, in face of a problem so great, it would be advantageous to employ every possible means to get additional houses. Had that been done, it seems to me that it would have been very beneficial, for the introduction of two systems would have meant that one would have been a check on the other, and also there would have been healthy competition provided which would have tended to increase the economy and efficiency of both.
  Mr. MeKinlay: The hon. and gallant Member is not suggesting that both systems did not operate at the some time?
  Commander Galbraith: They did not operate to anything like the measure they could have, as my hon. Friend well knows, and indeed recently, as he is also well aware, there has practically been only one system in operation. Let me say further that as a result of that political bias results, particularly in the last five years, have fallen far short of what they were in previous years. I have just received information, for instance, that from 1934——
  The Deputy-Chairman: I think we had better not go too much into political bias, as to do so may finish in a discussion far removed from that before the Committee:
  Mr. Buchanan: But this is a political Chamber. When did you get the right to say that it was not? What the hon. and gallant Gentleman is arguing is something about direct labour and private enterprise. He may be right or wrong, but surely when we are considering houses these issues are facts in the housing situation and ought to be discussed?
  The Deputy-Chairman: I did not say that the question of direct or indirect labour should be ruled out. I was suggesting that if the hon. and gallant Member had gone very far on the lines he was going, it would not be entirely within the scope of this Debate.
  Mr. Buchanan: The hon. and gallant Gentleman and others have raised the housing position in Glasgow. They are surely entitled to discuss, because part of the money used in it is Government money, the elements that go to make up the building situation, whether private enterprise, direct labour or anything else.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I think so, within reason.
  Mr. Buchanan: Not within reason, but within anything, if Government money is involved.
  The Deputy-Chairman: I think that if we carry on the whole argument as far as actual housing is concerned, we could easily go outside housing and get on to a discussion on other points which I think would be out of Order.
  Commander Galbraith: I do not propose to go on that line, Mr. Williams. I never did. All I wanted to say was really to express the hope that when the war is
  588
  over and we start building houses again people will remember that it is houses that are required and that they will not, at the expense of housing, try out their various political theories.
  I spoke a moment ago of the need for employing every agency that can possibly produce houses. I would ask my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the Under-Secretary, if consideration could be given to what I would call the master contract. By that I mean firms of very high reputation and financial standing such as would enable them to undertake schemes of magnitude and carry them through on their own. These firms might be asked to submit tenders for any scheme of considerable size, and they should be entrusted thereafter with carrying out the whole work, including sub-contracting and all necessary co-ordination, on their own. It may be contended, of course, that such a scheme would mean that there could not be proper competitive tenders. I would reply to that by saying that direct labour might and should prove an adequate check. I ask for consideration of that matter, because my experience has been that as a result of this fetish of accepting the lowest tender contracts have been awarded to firms who financially were unable to bear the strain, this resulting in shoddy work and in some contractors being unable to complete the contracts which they had undertaken.
  Might I turn for a moment to consider our past achievements in the building of houses in Scotland compared with results obtained in England, because from a comparison of that kind very valuable lessons might possibly be learned? In the 20 years ended 31st March, 1939, under the Housing Act, and with the assistance of subsidy, 1,500,000 houses were constructed in England, and of these 430,000 were constructed by private enterprise. The comparable figures for Scotland are 259,000 and 41,000 respectively. That is to say, that while in England under the Act one new house was provided for every 27 of the population, we in Scotland provided a new house for every to of the population. That is a result which is very soothing to our Scottish feelings, and I think it is very creditable to the housing authorities. But unfortunately it is not the end of the story, for in the same 20 years private enterprise, altogether unassisted by subsidy, built in England 2,500,000

  589
  houses to our 56,000 in Scotland. Therefore, one has these figures, that in England 4,000,000 houses were built, that is to say, one was provided for every 10 of the population, and in Scotland—I am taking the figure given to us just now as authoritative —we built 352,000, or one for every 14 of the population. That is to say, the very substantial lead which our local authorities obtained with the help of the subsidy was completely passed and wiped out by the operation of private enterprise in the case of England.
  From that comparison it appears to me that one matter of considerable importance emerges both for the taxpayer and for the Chancellor. Private enterprise in England without the help of any subsidy whatever provided 2½ houses for the 1½ houses provided with subsidy by the local authorities and private enterprise combined. The result is that the taxpayer was only called upon to subsidise 37½ per cent. of the houses built in England, whereas in Scotland he was called upon to subsidise 82 per cent. It may well be asked why the Scottish taxpayer should have to subsidise 82 per cent of the houses built while his brother in England was only called upon to subsidise 37½ per cent. In view of the enormous housing programme in prospect, it would be well for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to inquire how that comes about. If he does, he will find it is almost entirely due to the operation of the Scottish rating system, which makes it impossible for private persons to build houses for letting purposes and obtain a reasonable return on the capital invested. I am sure that the Committee will agree with me in this, that we want the largest possible number of houses in the shortest possible space of time. Can we possibly afford to shut out an agency which in England has provided 62½ per cent. of the houses built in the last 20 years without any assistance whatever? If the answer is that we cannot afford to do so, then the remedy is obvious, and I trust my right hon. Friend will have the courage to apply it.
  Might I turn for a brief moment to the type of house that is required? We are more or less committed to-day to the cottage type. I know reports have been received by a section of the Corporation of Glasgow that all the new houses can be built within the city boundaries, which
  590
  is something which departs from the experience of the past. But it seems to me that our concentration on the cottage type inevitably leads to building in the outskirts, to expansion of the cities, to applications to this House for an extension of boundaries, to friction with neighbouring authorities, to people having to live a long way from work, to inconvenience, to personal expense, to transport difficulties, and also to a very great expenditure on the part of local authorities in providing the services and amenities for houses built on the outskirts. Not only that, but it leaves the centre of the city derelict. I have no objection whatever to the cottage type as such, but I do think that a good case could be made out to-day for the erection of multi-storied flatted residences in the centre of the city. Their convenience and economy are very great, as I saw with my own eyes recently in America. They would enable people to live near their work, while the economies of central heating, a central water supply, and the central collection of waste would not only be a boon to the housewife but also an economy to the local authority.
  I do not wish to see any half-hearted experiments in that direction. If we are to experiment, I want to see an all-out effort—a building of 10 or 15 or 20 or more stories, provided with lifts and every possible convenience. I want it to be self-contained, with shops on the ground floor and all the amenities of communal life. I want it to be surrounded by a large open space laid out as a public park, with playgrounds for the children, recreation centres for the young and places where the aged can take their ease. If it has been done in America and other countries—Sweden and Austria—I do not see why it should not be done here. The answer, I am told, is that the cost, particularly of acquiring the ground, would be prohibitive. I find it very hard to believe that the cost of such a project in the centre of a. city where all the services—water, drainage, electricity, gas, transport, streets, schools and libraries—are already in being could vary greatly from the erection of hundreds of houses on the outskirts where all these services have to be provided. I would make an earnest plea to my right hon. Friend to give consideration to that matter.
  I spoke a moment ago of the convenience of building. I know that a

  591
  [Commander Galbraith.]
  very great deal of attention is being paid to-day to the architecture and lay-out of our housing schemes. I hope that similar attention is being given to the internal lay-out and that the women who have to work in these houses are being properly consulted in the matter, for in the past there is no doubt that houses were pretty badly laid out, very inconvenient, and were of a type where the maximum amount of work produced only the minimum results. Reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollax as to whether or not it is a good thing for people to live in the vicinity of the place where they work. We all know that used to be the fact but that in recent years it has been departed from, and we welcome it as taking dirt and smoke away from the vicinity of residential quarters. But I would ask the Committee to consider whether, with the modern developments in the supply of electrical power, and with factories no longer necessarily ugly, it would not be a convenience for people to live close to their places of work. It would depend a great deal, of course, upon the circumstances of the family.
  There is another suggestion that I would like to make. Our housing authorities might take into consideration, when laying out a scheme, the provision of a factory building, divided into small units, which could be let out to small firms such as we find to-day working more frequently than not under very unhealthy and insanitary conditions in the basements of dilapidated buildings.
  I was glad to have the assurance from my right hon. Friend that even in the midst of war he is continuing planning, and that adequate sites are being secured. I hope that he will take into consideration the suggestions made by the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison). With this terrific programme that confronts us, is it possible for us to build speedily and to the best advantage and yet leave housing in charge of the present local authorities? Looking at the Clyde Valley as a whole, where the burghs are placed so very close together, it seems to me that if expansion is to be carried out on a properly-ordered basis, the continuation of one burgh's scheme into an adjoining burgh or out into the county areas, is
  592
  necessary. I have some doubt whether that can be done efficiently under the present authorities, or whether the time has not come when housing should be placed on a regional basis. That is a matter which needs to be discussed at great length, and I have already spoken far too long. I would ask other hon. Members, if they think it worthy of consideration, to mention the matter, and I ask by right hon. Friend to give it his mature consideration.
  In Scotland, the problem of housing is gigantic, and I hope that we may tackle it united in purpose, that we may set aside preconceived ideas, that we may use every possible means at our disposal; in fact, that we may get down to the job of providing our country with houses such as our people richly deserve, and such as are essential to health, happiness, and in accordance with those standards of social betterment which I am sure is our ambition and which we are all determined to achieve.
  Mr. Buchanan: I was very pleased to see the Secretary of State take more time than he has done on past occasions, although we could, I think, have listened to him for still longer. In the limited time which he occupied he dealt with the health and housing of Scotland. Other speakers in the Debate so far have referred only to housing. I also intend to deal with that subject, but first I want to say a few words on health. Speaking for myself, I would say that the Secretary of State must not expect this Debate to have nothing controversial about it. I think the Secretary of State is far too much inclined to think that you can solve problems without controversy. To make us all nice charming boys, kicking with the same foot in the same direction, is not a laudable objective, even if you could achieve it. The Secretary of State was one of the chief controversialists in Scotland, and he must not now resent criticism.
  He has issued a memorandum on the treatment of tuberculosis and has stated that he is now giving special grants, which, he emphasised, are free from any means test. When one hears the memorandum explained by the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary, one is apt to take off one's hat and cheer it as a great achievement, but when one reads the memorandum one finds that the achievement is

  593
  nothing like so great. It gives the single person 39s. a week, and the married person 39s., plus certain other allowances, with 10s. for rent. But the whole of the National Health Insurance is deducted from that; and the great bulk of National Health Insurance contributors receive at least £1 a week. So it is not 39s., but 39s., less 20s., that is being provided. When one compares it with the old Poor Law for Glasgow, its advantages are not marked, because under the Poor Law scheme 10s. 6d. of that National Health Insurance payment had to be ignored. I am convinced that behind the illness problem the question of wages plays a dominant part. Recently I was speaking to a man who is interested in the Port of Glasgow. The City Port, from Greenock up to Glasgow, is of tremendous importance now. This man, in common with others, is worried about the sickness rate. He tells me that it is almost impossible at times to define whether a workman has become sick through his work or from some other cause, because the dividing line is so close. He is running the docks, and he wants to make them efficient. He wants men to lay off for a few days at the beginning of their sickness, and to get better, rather than to turn out for work and to drag on for days, when they are ill. The trouble is that they receive only National Health Insurance. The solution is to put the general working community on the same footing as most of the Government servants, local authorities' servants, and officials. If the ordinary worker is legitimately sick, he should be put on the wage that he was earning. when he was well. The 39s. for T.B., when you have taken away the £1, is not very attractive.
  No one in a city like Glasgow can help being worried about the known incidence of T.B. The Secretary of State referred in the memorandum to the development of certain ways of tracing the disease—I think it is by some photographic method. The local authorities are already staggered by the figures which are revealed, and some are positively alarmed at the thought of what the new method will disclose about T.B. The Secretary of State can say what he likes, but it is not complimentary to our City or to Scotland that to-day doctors cannot get places for T.B. patients in our hospitals. Even when people do go into hospitals, they are unduly scampered out, back to the slums from which they came. The need for
  594
  providing T.B. treatment is great, but one of the greatest needs is a period of convalescence afterwards. In this matter the Scottish Office has been guilty of serious neglect. The well-to-do approved societies, like the local government offices and the railway clerks, have provided convalescent homes for their members, but the poorer workers and their wives have none. To-day, these people, after being treated for T.B., are merely flung back into the shocking dwellings from which they emerged. There were valuable convalescent homes which were run by the co-operative movement and others, but they have been taken over by the Government for war purposes. In a month, two months, or three months after treatment, the man or woman drifts back to T.B. again so that medical skill, time, and patience are wasted, with no results to show for it. This sum of 39s. is nothing like sufficient. There is a great deal of parade about the scheme, but it does not bear proper examination. The Secretary of State should provide a payment which compares much more favourably with normal wages, and somehow or other, even in war time, he must rescue people from a position in which after treatment they have to go back to the places from which they emerged.
  No one can be satisfied at any time with housing in Scotland. Before the war the position was indefensible. In the West of Scotland it was one which caused every decent person, no matter what his religion or politics, almost to hide his head with shame. The Secretary of State throws out his chest, and say, "We had built 300,000 houses in Scotland in pre-war days." But he has to bear in mind certain things. It is a great achievement to build 300,000 houses if 300,000 is all you need, but it is not a great achievement if you need three times that number, and it is not a great achievement if during the time you are building them more houses are passing out of use than the number you are building. That was the situation in Glasgow, where, before the war, you were merely keeping pace and doing nothing to meet the terrible inroad on the number of habitable houses.
  Since the war the position has been growing worse. No one in this Committee wants to give harrowing details of what they see and know, such as for instance the case of the father fighting abroad, with nine children at home, living

  595
  in a two-roomed apartment house. Who can defend this sort of thing? The tragic thing is that this man is fighting out in Africa, and to him it matters little who wins the war, if, at the end of it, he has to come back to his nine children living in these conditions. The Secretary of State held out no hope of anything better for him to wish to come back. He talked about the future, but I say that this thing should be done now. If I speak heatedly on this matter, it is because my constituency, possibly without exception, is the worst of any in this respect. It is terrible to see some of the people. The President of the Board of Trade at Question time to-day said that he had made arrangements for the manufacture, I think, of some 90,000 wireless sets. Wireless sets are desirable things, but when I listened to that I said to myself that, while he can make arrangements for the supply of 90,000 wireless sets, the best we can do in Scotland is to make arrangements for only 1,000 houses, and even in regard to that number, there are only estimates in to-day for 200. This is a disgrace.
  The Secretary of State should look to some temporary method of rescuing these people. They are sinking. Some have sank or their health is in such a state that they can hardly now be rescued. One sees every form of human adaptation made for the accommodation of troops coming here from overseas, and there is no place where that adaptation has taken place with greater rapidity than in our native country. If this country were faced to-morrow with the problem of housing a quarter of a million troops, Scotland could do it in next to no time. When questions were asked to-day about the miners an hon. Gentleman observed that miners were not dissimilar to men in the Army, that they were just as important. The digging of coal, whether in peace or war, is one of the most important occupations, but it does not end with coal. The dividing line between soldier and civilian is very narrow, and to-day you house your Armies but you do not do it for your army of civil workers living in our great cities. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member opposite who is smiling that this to me is serious.
  Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I came in to listen to the hon. Member.
  Mr. Buchanan: I am sorry, but may I tell the hon. and gallant Member how passionately we feel about this? It is terrible. Although this may be said against me, I am not against allowing the big contractor helping out. I am not against trying anything that will mean the building of houses quickly. One of the terrible problems of our city is the density of population. Glasgow has a greater population than Birmingham, which occupies an acreage two and a half times greater than that of Glasgow. Edinburgh has a population of less than half a million, and actually in acreage it is almost the same as the City of Glasgow. The density of population in Glasgow is colossal.
  Commander Galbraith: I do not think that the suggestion I made would make the density greater, because there is such a large area cleared, and it would be better laid out than it is at present.
  Mr. Buchanan: I see no interest displayed in the development of the cottage type of dwelling. The Secretary of State cannot justify the position by counting on something which is to happen some day after the war. He will have to do more than he is doing now. The erection of 1,000 houses now is practically no contribution to the solution of the housing problem. He talked about getting the Glasgow Corporation to turn a few shops into houses. Let him do that if he wants to do so, but he has to make up his mind—whether it is done by the use of some other form of building material or not, I care not—to get the people housed as soon as possible. We cannot go on with our city in the way it is. You cannot talk about the great aims for which we are fighting. It appears shallow to these people unless you connect it with their lives at home. The Secretary of State will be judged on the success or failure of the housing of the Scottish people, and so far his contribution towards a solution of the problem is extremely meagre. He ought to devote the great talent which he possesses immediately to finding at least some temporary method of solving this problem while he works out the larger plans that lie ahead
  Sir Samuel Chapman: I am sure that the whole Committee will have listened, as we always do, to the burning words of my hon. Friend

  597
  the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) with great approval. He knows at first hand the conditions of the great mass of the people in Glasgow and the West of Scotland. I for one shall always be willing to sit at his feet and learn something of the social conditions of the people. I was thinking when he spoke of words that Disraeli used 100 years ago, when he stated that the amelioration of the social conditions of the people should be the first object of a statesman and that if this were not accomplished the pomp and power of thrones and of Parliaments were alike worthless. I am sure that the Committee agree with my hon. Friend in trying to get on with his great housing problem, and we have the utmost confidence in the Secretary of State for Scotland and his Department that they will do all that is humanly possible to bring about a better state of things, so
  .that my hon. Friend will not be able to get up in this House a few years hence and draw such an unhappy picture.
  I really got up for one purpose. The Secretary of State, in his short and interesting speech, mentioned Gleneagles. I have known Gleneagles for 30 years or more, and I knew it when it was a bleak hillside and that palatial building was not there at all. I had the honour and pleasure, at the suggestion of the Secretary of State himself, of spending a most absorbing and happy day at Gleneagles three weeks ago. I went with two friends, and we came to the conclusion that it would be impertinence to go about and ask questions. But during our stay we thought we would like to get to know about the atmosphere of the Rest Home and find out the real feelings of those who are being treated there and brought back, if possible, to a sound state of health. One of my friends by chance happened to talk to a Lanarkshire man who was there, and he found that his father had been his schoolmaster, and so they got very friendly, and in a few minutes we heard all about the atmosphere. The right hon Gentleman, in initiating this great project, has set a noble example right through the country of what ought to be done in the future. We saw there 200 men who had come through a strenuous life and had met with an accident, receiving the utmost care, sympathy and attention from a devoted staff. I do not know whether I am right in saying it, but I should like to mention in this House, which is the sound-
  598
  ing board of Scotland, the name of the head of the staff who looks after these patients with such great care. His name is Dr. McLeod—a good Highland name. Highlanders have always been full of sympathy for their fellows. As Bonnie Prince Charlie said:
  "Give me back my Highland comrades,
  Give me back my Highland maid.
  Nowhere beats a heart more kindly
  Than beneath the tartan plaid."
  No hearts beat more kindly than the hearts of Dr. McLeod and his efficient staff. They are kindness personified, and I could detect in the happiness and conduct of the patients there the utmost gratitude for what was being done for them. Good luck to the right hon. Gentleman and his scheme; may it be copied throughout the length and breadth of the land. If any hon. Member has not had an opportunity of going there to see what is being done, he should make the opportunity, because it would make him very happy to see what was being done for those in less fortunate circumstances than himself.
  Mr. Stephen: I listened to the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland with great interest, but I must say that I felt more and more despondent as I heard his statement. When I heard what he promised us with regard to houses I felt that our people would be left in a terrible position. The right hon. Gentleman gave figures about the increase in tuberculosis and told us about the hospital accommodation that was being provided. But I would have liked him to have spent a little more time in telling us what was considered to be the probable cause of the increase in tuberculosis. It is a fine thing to have an ambulance ready when there has been an accident, but it is much better to prevent the accident. I, in common with other people, have been very worried about the increase in this disease. We have heard from time to time statements about the health of the nation being better since the war in spite of rationing restrictions and other things, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) has said, some people will say anything. It is good to know that attention is being paid to the question of treating tuberculous people, but I think the Department of Health for Scotland will have to take much

  599
  more vigorous steps than they have been taking up to now to see that people leaving hospitals after treatment are housed in conditions which will enable them to maintain a proper standard of health.
  I want, however, to say a few words about housing. In the district I represent in this House we have some of the worst housing conditions in Scotland. When I came into the House of Commons in 1922 the infant mortality rate in one of the wards in the Camlachie constituency was the highest in any part of the country. To-day, in spite of all I have been able to do, the conditions in that ward are still very bad; indeed, housing conditions there are lamentable in the extreme. The Secretary of State has told us about a programme for 1,000 houses for Scotland and added that the stern necessity of war prevented more being done at the moment. I was dismayed about his hesitation in giving figures of tenders for housing schemes. The right hon.Gentleman said, "Do not ask for a figure, because it might be taken up by others in putting forward tenders for other schemes." The figure of £1,300 was mentioned in connection with houses for the English scheme. Remembering what happened in connection with the Addison scheme, I cannot understand why the Government do not deal with this question of the increase in the prices of houses. People are being conscripted; they are being taken into the Services and into workshops, yet the Government are making no real attempt to deal with the interests connected with land and property in order to see that our people get the housing accommodation they ought to have. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) spoke of soldiers coming home from Africa and various fields of battle to slums in which they would have to live with their children. Why do not the Government act in this matter?
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) described the clearing of a centre of a city and the building of flats with a park around them and asked whether that was not a very material contribution. As I was listening to what he was saying, I thought I was listening to someone reading a chapter out of Hans
  600
  Andersen's fairy tales. The Scottish Office are considering what is the best type of house; housewives have been consulted, and exhibitions are being held, yet practically nothing is being done, and I believe very little will be done in the future. The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok wondered whether we had not lost a great deal in the past in Glasgow because certain people there have been thrilled with the idea of direct labour for the production of houses. Well, in the greater part of those areas there was not a Labour majority. It is true that Labour councils persuaded moderate majorities to employ both methods—direct labour and private contract—but the number of houses produced was very small compared with the needs of the City of Glasgow. I cannot understand why the Government do not take control of everything that is necessary for the production of houses. The Committee, should not be content with the programme outlined by the Government. The programme for to-day and the immediate to-morrow should be greatly increased, in spite of the necessities of war. More labour should be available for the building of houses in Glasgow. We shall have a poor future indeed unless greater imagination, enthusiasm, courage and audacity are put into the solution of this problem by the Scottish Office than have been evident up to the present time.
  Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I regret that I did not hear the complete speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland, through no fault of my own, but that part which I did hear convinced me of something I have known for some time, namely, that he has brought to bear on his difficult and very important job great sincerity and great honesty. I have long watched the right hon. Gentleman, and although in the past he was rather apt to be more critical than those of us who are criticising him to-day, I think it is possible that in those days he had more reason. I think all Secretaries of State are open to criticism. If we go back over the last 10 or 15 years, we can find very good reasons for being dissatisfied with the progress made in the administration of health and social services in Scotland.
  But to-day the Secretary of State has a good team round him, I think a team pervaded with the same sense of honesty,

  601
  determination and sincerity that he has himself. Indeed, listening to his speech, and knowing what I know, I think he put up a very good case except from one angle, namely, the question of housing. He is not alone in this failure. The failure has existed as long as I have been in the House, and I have never yet been able to understand it. Like many others, I suppose, I receive about 30 letters a day from my constituency, five of which—I have tried to make a conservative average—are about housing. That is 1,500 a year from one constituency alone. Therefore to me it is not surprising that on all sides of the House we have Members who cannot find the attitude of the Government towards this vital problem satisfactory. Indeed, sometimes I pinch myself and wonder whether we are really alive to the most fundamental necessity of making the people happy, contented and healthy—that is by providing good, happy, sanitary homes. Why is it that we lag so hopelessly behind practically every civilised community? All over Great Britain wherever you come to big cities you find slums. I am well aware that today it is even more vital than ever to have a contented and happy people, because the war effort depends on it. You cannot expect people to put their might, their soul and their body into producing the weapons which are to bring us victory hen they have not reasonable conditions of life around them.
  Another thing is the continuous reference made by every Minister in turn whose Department is affected to the shortage of labour and material. It seems to be now accepted as a proper defence to every challenge to what we should do and have not done. In the last few years we have erected scores of airfields and thousands of huts to accommodate millions of Americans, but when it comes to providing decent and reasonable accommodation for the workers who make all these things possible, we are contented to let them live and die in squalor. That does not seem to me good enough. I do not want right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench to blush for themselves. They are only taking part in a policy which has been in existence for the last 20 years. It is not particularly their fault, except that if I were in their position, I would resign to-morrow rather than be a party to the conditions of housing in Scotland to-day. It has been said as another defence that it is the dead
  602
  hand of the Treasury which stops progress. If that is so, let us remember that both the Treasury and its spokesman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are the servants of this House, and therefore ultimately the responsibility for the conditions existing in Great Britain to-day comes back to us. Unless we are determined, as a House, and as representatives of the people, to see that our word carries and our determination perseveres and our aims are achieved, we are responsible. There is no getting away from it.
  I am glad to say that we have the Prime Minister back with us, and we are grateful and relieved in our hearts that he is back safely. We all know that he is wrapped up, very properly, in the supreme job of winning the war, and therefore, quite naturally, he leaves these domestic matters to departmental administration, but I wonder whether, as Minister of Defence, he fully realises that what every soldier in North Africa is fighting for, what every soldier has always fought for, is not for an ideal. He has fought for the fireside that he knows and loves. He has fought for the scrap of garden that he has cultivated his flowers in. He has fought for a glimpse of the countryside that he sees and the home that he loves. What are these soldiers who are fighting to-day coming back to? They are not fighting for a slum. Surely they are not coming back to Britain to find a slum as their reward. I leave it to the Secretary of State, and those associated with the Scottish Office, to see that all our wishes are translated into realities. Do not let us fiddle about with 1,000 houses—300,000 before the war and 1,000 now. Let us attack the thing with humanity, courage and determination. Let us wipe aside all these clichés about labour and material. We can produce the labour and material when we want them. I put up a suggestion to the Secretary of State some time ago which was put up to me by a retired builder in Ayr, who said, "Only give me the bricks. I have old chaps over 60 who have been associated with me. Give me the bricks, and I will undertake to provide the labour. I do not say I will put up many, but I will go on putting up houses one at a time till the end of the war." He has built many streets, and he knows the job. I got a reply that the matter would be carefully considered. It was most hopeful and sympathetic, but

  603
  I should like something more than sympathy. I should like something done.
  I do not want to make the picture all black, because that would be distinctly unfair to the Scottish Office. I know that a great deal has been done. Great efforts have been made in regard to public health as a whole. Local authorities and private enterprise have done well, but the scale of their efforts is wrong. There is something in the tempo that is wrong, and it has to be put right from the top. Everything that is wrong in a battalion, in a ship or in a factory comes from the top. You have to get the direction, the enthusiasm, the imagination and the drive from the top. That is where we look to the Secretary of State, and to the War Cabinet if the Secretary of State cannot get his way. Every Secretary of State, particularly the Secretary of State for Scotland, should be in a position to go to the War Cabinet and demand a seat on it, where he can exercise his authority. I do not intend to quote examples. We have all got them, and we blush for them. But let us face the facts. Take the question of the children. I think the children of Great Britain as a whole are better fed to-day than ever they were before. They are more properly clad than ever before. But they are not suitably accommodated. We all know that T.B. is increasing. How could it be otherwise when, despite all efforts to keep them healthy and rosy cheeked and well, they have to live in waterlogged rooms, perhaps sharing a lavatory with 20 others in the same block? Those are the things that exist. If we are really to build this new brave world which is going to be the result of victory, we have to start now, and we have to put the best that we have into it.
  Sir William Beveridge has talked about many good things. He has talked about pensions and social security, but he has not stressed, as I feel he should have done, the necessity for good, decent, comfortable and sanitary homes. They are more important than all the pensions and all the ideals of social security that this great humanist has put before us, because they are the very foundation on which the family life, the social life, the industrial life, and the fighting life of the nation depend. I have made many suggestions to the Secretary of State in writing. I have suggested the advisability of having
  604
  a review of all the condemned houses as a short-term policy and seeing whether something could not be done which did not demand much labour and material to make them suitable so as to meet the overcrowding and the disgusting conditions in which many of our people live. I think the huts that have been built should be used after the war. They are very good, well heated, windproof, rainproof, and a lot could be done with them for the time being until labour and material are available, but what more than anything else is necessary is the spirit and determination on the part of the Government really to put everything they have into this business. It is too big to be relegated to a few hours' Debate. It means too much to our people. We have a good Secretary of State. There is nothing wrong with him. There is nothing wrong with his colleagues. They are good, keen, determined, honest, decent people, but they have not delivered the goods in regard to houses. They are capable of doing it if only they will pull their weight with the War Cabinet and force them to see the importance of the issue. If they do, we may yet remove this stigma which has lain on the country as a whole for so many years past.
  Mr. McKinlay: This is such a many-sided problem that as a matter of convenience I might have followed in the footsteps of the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith), but as the one who in recent years was the father of the direct labour department in Glasgow I will make only one passing reference to what he said. I make the challenge to either the hon. and gallant Member or to any of those associated with him to produce one tittle of evidence that at any time direct labour construction in Glasgow was used as anything other than ancillary to the methods which were being adopted at that time. If I may say so without offence, I had the privilege of introducing the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok to one or two of the contractors who went bankrupt and walked out and left us high and dry with unfinished houses on the stocks. So I think the less we say about that aspect of Glasgow's housing problem the better for all concerned. I will say, however, that we have never built by direct labour with concrete of 13 parts sand and one

  605
  of cement in internal walls and that no member of Glasgow Town Council associated with direct labour has ever been made a baron or a knight and at no time has anybody been proceeded against on petition.
  I want to congratulate the Secretary of State on a pronouncement he made at the week-end at a Scottish housing and town planning conference. The trouble with this problem is that there has been so much "talkee-talkee" about it during the last 33 years. Had there been less talk and more action, we should not have found ourselves in the difficulties in which we are placed at the moment. The Secretary of State is entitled to receive at least our support for having indicated to the powers-that-be that so far as Scotland is concerned we are for no central authority stationed in Whitehall. This central planning authority stands for this, that and the other thing, and the Minister of Health for England, with his 3,000 houses for agricultural workers, is in a hog. There have been so many planners of these 3,000 houses that they have not been able even to agree on a design or a price. There are four different Ministries putting their fingers in the pie—the Ministry of Planning, the Ministry of Works, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Supply—and I prophecy that not one of these 3,000 houses will emerge within the next 12 months. The virtue of the Scottish position is that we have the Ministers of all Departments rolled into one, with a possible exception at the moment.
  One of the Whitehall octopuses has invaded Scotland—the Ministry of Works, which at the moment is more concerned in the destruction of direct labour departments than it is in assisting the solution of some of our temporary housing difficulties. Let me give an illustration. The Glasgow housing authority asked for 53 tradesmen of various types to assist in the completion of houses. They asked for 35 tradesmen for contractors working for the corporation. The Ministry of Works provided nine of the 53 and 24 of the 35. It is very difficult for the Ministry to transfer men from private contractors to work on direct labour. My experience is that once a craftsman gets a job on direct labour you cannot remove him with a bomb, but you can transfer a craftsman on the superannuation list from direct labour to contractors. I want to ask the Secretary of State whether he is aware
  606
  of an organisation having considerable influence in the councils of the Ministry of Works which is making an effort to corner all the major building contracts during the war and which desires to anticipate the end of hostilities by creating a corner in the construction of houses for the working classes after the war? If the Minister is unaware of it, I suggest that he should keep his ear to the ground, because, make no mistake about it, the building industry after the war is going to be the Mecca of all the chancers who wish to pick up easy money. Nobody is a greater chanter than the person who has something to sell. I want to warn Scottish Members that we must clear the Ministry of Works out of Scotland lock, stock and barrel at the earliest opportunity.
  Let me give another illustration. One of my constituents was badly advised to ask for permission from the Supply Ministry to use some scrap timber in his back yard to put up a place in which to keep four pullets. The reply was that the Department regretted that it could not authorise the use of the material for this purpose. That was all that was required, but the Department went on to give the address of a cement corrugated sheeting firm in London who would supply this man, an occupier of a corporation house, with a substitute with which to erect his hen house. I ask the Secretary of State to give us some information about what the Ministry of Works is doing. I do not want him to criticise another Ministry, for that would be infra dig, although a part of the trouble is that Ministries go about covering up one another's mistakes.
  With regard to the question of house construction, I know what the dream house is but the worst of a dream is that you have to wake up. As I said in a previous Debate, we have all the Bohemians from John o' Groats to Land's End planning houses for the future with recess cupboards, refrigerators, ironing boards, extra room for the wife, electric this and gas that. Nobody ever stops to think whether this is the quickest way to ease a depressing situation. Everybody is entitled to a refrigerator if he wants one, but surely the first responsibility of the local authority is to provide the house and to give people some place in which to lay their heads. One would think that it was fairly simple to proceed with a housing programme and that it was merely

  607
  a question of buying a site and putting the builders on it. It is not as simple as that, although the procedure could be simplified. I would ask my right hon. Friend to remember, in any calculations he intends making as to what the potential outcome in housing will be, that he ought to base his figures on orthodox methods of construction, relying on alternative methods to supplement them, because the quickest, cheapest and best method even to-day after thousands of years of house construction is by bricks, stone or mortar. Some people will say that I am backward or not modern. I will give a reason for not being so modern as some people. There is a scheme in Scotland where all the floors are constructed of cement and even the roof is of cement, but the cost per square yard of the flooring is 23s. 6d. The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok can take it from me that if you build multi-storied flats of anything up to 20 stories, all constructed with cement floors, the flooring alone will swallow the subsidy.
  The Minister has said that local authorities can make provision for one year's programme. What is one year's programme? From were is he going to get the figures to determine what a year's programme is to be? When the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok vacated Glasgow city chamber with the ruling body, they left 159 acres for future requirements in the city of Glasgow. That is land for less than 3,000 houses. I cannot understand why the Government ask local authorities to make provision for the future and go ahead with their plans and then tell them that their planning must be for one year only. If there were any local authority in Britain which could solve its problem in a year that would make sense. There is no use drawing up plans. Most local authorities could stock the Department of Health with plans next week if they were wanted. The Department of Health itself could flood local authorities with plans. It is not plans we want. The first essential for the building of houses is the land upon which to put them. Surely it is an insult to Members of this House to tell them that this nation is so afraid of inflation that local authorities must not plan for more than a year ahead. I have heard it seriously said that the reason why the Treasury placed
  608
  an embargo on anything more than the provision of land for one year's housing was that it would be a contribution towards inflation. That sort of bogyman frightens nobody. In Glasgow they have land for a five-year programme lying sterile. They have £75,000 worth of civil engineering plant lying idle. They have everything that is needed other than the materials and the labour, yet on this measurement Glasgow cannot acquire another yard of land.
  Take Dumbarton County. The Vale of Leven is one of the most hopelessly over- crowded places in Scotland, but the Government sent evacuees into the Vale of Leven, and they overcrowded condemned houses. There was a housing scheme coming near to completion in the place, but the First Lord of the Admiralty requisitioned those houses for workers at the Alexandra factory. The same was done in Greenock. The Government recognised the necessity for housing comfortably people engaged on war work. Fifteen hundred houses were built in Hillingdon for the Rolls Company, who were under contract with the Air Ministry. I say definitely that the ship-yard riveter works harder than any precision engineer and is entitled to have some place in which to lay his head. The Government will say they are not to blame. I am not blaming this Government, but there are hundreds of Members on the other side of the House who share the responsibility for the mess we are in to-day. From 1932 to 1936 there was only one Act on the Statute Book under which a local authority could operate and that was the Act of 1933. The rents were fixed at 6s. a week, but when it was found that there was a deficiency of £8 16s. per house authorities did not build. From 1933, with the withdrawal of the Wheatley subsidy—and hon. Members opposite were responsible for that—and after the Reports of the Moyne Committee in England and the Whitson Committee in Scotland, they knew the problem existed, but they were more concerned with trying to get grants for reconditioning dilapidated property. The owners of that property had made no provision for depreciation out of their rents; they had taken everything and left nothing for depreciation.
  Commander Galbraith: Is that the reason why the housing committee with which the hon. Member is associated has

  609
  been able to produce only 2,861 houses a year, on the average, between 1934 and 1939?
  Mr. McKinlay: Measure those houses in terms of apartments. When we took over we stopped doing what your people were doing, perpetuating slums by building two-apartment houses. In the houses we built we produced over 1,500 more apartments in the year than were provided in the houses built before. Reference has been made to Glasgow's 100,000 houses. I speak as one who drafted the Report which has been mentioned. It would be far better to consult the Report first and see what is in it than to mention that Glasgow's housing needs have jumped to 100,000 in seven years. The estimate of Glasgow's housing needs, according to the 1935 census taken by the medical officers of health, was based not on housing the people who were houseless but on providing houses for people who were living in overcrowded conditions. Again, may I say that it was I who fixed the figure at 65,000, because I thought it was a reasonable 10-year programme. Anyone who thinks we can build 60,000 houses in the whole of Scotland in one year is living in a fool's paradise—that is, if we build houses.
  In conclusion, I would make an appeal to the Government. The Government are sitting on the edge of a minefield. There must be improvisation. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) talked about the number of letters he received on the subject of housing. I have interviewed as many as 3,000 persons in nine months in connection with houses. The Government should take steps to arrange for the speedy erection of mass-produced improvised dwellings. A timber house with air space and cleanliness is better than no house at all. We owe it to the thousands of young men who have married since joining the Army to take action. For Heaven's sake, do not ask them to come back to dual occupancy. If there is dual occupancy and children are born in overcrowded conditions, it will be simply perpetuating what all our efforts have been directed to clearing away. I ask the Government to tell local authorities which have land to get ahead with making roads and installing services, and those which have not land should be given authority to acquire land so that they can put in the essential services and to that
  610
  extent be ready for the speedy erection of dwellings.
  Mr. Erskine-Hill: I want to add a few remarks to what has been, to me, a most interesting Debate. All of us are anxious, above everything else, to do the best we can for Scotland and the problem is one of the most difficult the country has ever had to face. There is much leeway to be made up; if there is much leeway in England the leeway in Scotland is greater. That is true despite the figures given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland of the houses built in Scotland before the war. The question is one which each of us will have to face within the next few years, and each of us has a duty to display an interest in it rising above party politics. I listened with great interest to what the Secretary of State had to say. There are three periods to be considered. First, what can be done for housing now, in this war; secondly, what can be done when the rush time comes, when the men are coming back from the front, and thirdly what is to be the long-term policy? I was impressed with what the Secretary of State told us he was doing during the war, although I think it is not nearly enough. He must know that we would all wish him to see that more is done. I believe that some 325 houses are to be completed in Edinburgh this year. I do not know whether the Secretary of State is aware that some people have been waiting for houses for eight years. Therefore, I am sure that he will understand our anxiety that every effort should be made, even in war time, to push on with whatever can be done. Of course, the wider national interest must come first, because men are required for the all-important duty of winning the war, but I would ask him to remember that anything that can be done now is urgently wanted and will be of the greatest help, when the rush period comes.
  I was a little disappointed that he was not able to give us any definite plan of what he proposed to do for the rush period. He did say that an important committee had been appointed under the chairmanship of the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who is to wind up the Debate, and here I would take the opportunity of telling my right hon. Friend how glad we all are that he has received his recent honour. The important point about this Committee is whether it has power to

  611
  come to any decisions as to the line the Government is to take after the war, or is it only to report back to the Secretary of State? Every sort of house, every type of building, will be wanted if we are to build a half of what is necessary for Scotland. I think hon. Members would have welcomed a clear statement of policy laying down the various uses to which the energies within the country are to be put. Perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary may be able to tell the House a little more. We want to utilise everything—utilize building societies and private enterprise and also utilise local authorities. Building societies have done good work for the country. One in my own city, the Scottish Amicable, has done particularly fine work. Everything is needed; and on this point we Scottish Members might well consider whether we could not bring about a little more co-operation among ourselves, forsaking party interests for what is in the interests of the country as a whole. I feel sure the Secretary of State for Scotland would welcome any step in that direction.
  Mr. Gallacher: If the hon. and learned Member wants us to agree, would he be prepared to take over land, without paying the price that is demanded for land required in order, to build houses? If he did that, we could agree on some of the other things.
  Mr. Erskine-Hill: The hon. Gentleman is, at once, trying to introduce party politics. I am perfectly willing to meet him on the footing that what is necessary, above all, for the interests of Scotland should be conceded, but I am not prepared to come in on the basis of committing myself to one party's policy. If there is to be an agreement and we are to try and get co-operation, we must try to find out what is the greatest measure of things on which we can all agree. If the hon. Member opposite were really anxious to help in this matter he would be able to contribute from his angle much that was useful. If we do keep to party politics we shall be doing injury to the people of Scotland. On the question of the long-term policy, I hope that the Secretary of State will give those who are in charge of this matter a considerable amount of responsibility, and allow them to get, not only what is aesthetic and good from an architectural point of view but what will make for real homes for the people of Scotland.
  612
  It may be asking much but I feel sure that the Secretary of State ought to be pressed constantly to produce a scheme such as we want, a scheme that will be worthy of Scotland. I hope that he will clear up the matter in this Debate if possible or, if not then, as soon as possible thereafter. It may be that we shall have a statement outlining an ambitious programme such as will help the people in the country we represent. I believe that housing is the greatest challenge which we have to face and if we are not found worthy of it, much harm will be done in the country in the years to come. Housing is one of the first necessities. It comes before almost anything else and we must approach the matter in no niggardly spirit. We must not limit ourselves to one particular line of action but proceed with determination, without regard to our own particular ideas, and be willing to cooperate in the greatest work that we can all do at this stage.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I listened to the Secretary of State for Scotland demonstrating to the Committee what a great artist he is, but he painted a picture in which I did not recognise my own country. To listen to him speaking about health, one would have thought that all was better than well in Scotland. Why, if the present generation were not descended from a very hardy and intelligent race, they would have been wiped out. Housing conditions in Scotland are a standing disgrace, and the Secretary of State, and the two Joint Under-Secretaries, who are sitting on the Front Bench now, cannot escape responsibility for those conditions. Think of Scotland, as we know it. If any stranger came in here to-day he would have heard every speech condemning Scottish housing conditions or calling for the present state of affairs to be remedied. Every speech has drawn attention to the danger that, unless that state of affairs is remedied immediately, the health of the people of Scotland is bound to deteriorate to a greater extent than it has done up to date. Without any shadow of doubt, and irrespective of political opinion, the whole Committee is of opinion that something radical should be done—not a twopenny halfpenny affair of building about a thousand houses for the whole country.
  That brings me from the general aspect of the question to my own constituency,

  613
  where conditions are beyond belief. Men working in Clydebank have threatened to stop work in a token strike, in order to draw attention to the awful conditions with which they are faced. They are scattered all over the West of Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland put up a proposition about Glasgow. All the speeches delivered here to-day have been about the hellish conditions in Glasgow—overcrowding and slums—yet the Secretary of State for Scotland could stand at that Box and say that Glasgow was prepared to take in a proportion of people who had been driven by the blitz out of Clydebank. What is the meaning of these things? If Ministers did not know, I could forgive them. I do not want to be saying these things about the Scottish Office. I would rather be on friendly terms with them. But I represent folk who are desperate for houses, for homes of their own, in fact for what we have promised them, ever since we started the idea of better housing for the working-folk of Scotland. The home life of the people of our country was the backbone of the British Empire. I wish we had John Wheatley with us here; we should have another Scotland. I am confident of that, but we have to deal with the material we have, and make the best of it.
  Consider my constituency. There has been no attempt to deal with the state of affairs which exists there. They tell me that 200 houses are to be built. Two hundred houses will not touch the fringe of the problem. We need 2,000, and even that would not cure the position. Previously we had scheduled for 3,000 houses. Let anybody go and see how derelict the place is. Some individuals from London get whirled through the blitz areas, and they say that they will have all the rubbish removed. It has not been removed yet. Then there are the rats. I went to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and he sent down the rat catchers. There was one four-storeyed property, in a top fiat of which 20 rats were caught in three weeks. New works have come to the West of Scotland, and my folk see 1,500 new houses being built. That is not all. We have been told that housing cannot be proceeded with because of a Cabinet decision and because of a shortage of timber and other materials, and labour. The war has to
  614
  be won first—"Win the war, and all these things shall be added unto you" we are told.
  I have been asked to go with different Ministers of the Crown through different parts of Britain. The last was a great part of the South of Scotland, where I saw factories that had been erected and accommodation being built for thousands of people. I am not asking for anything revolutionary when I say that if temporary accommodation can be built for those new workers, the same thing could be done for the workers in Clydebank who are building the most essential, priority No. I ships.
  Mr. McKie: The hon. Member has been talking about the South of Scotland and temporary housing accommodation being erected on a large scale. I think that if he reflects he may modify his statement.
  Mr. Kirkwood: It depends. This is a very serious matter, and something will have to be done to meet the legitimate needs of the people. This is only hitting the workers. It is the workers' houses, not those of the well-off folk. If it was, the problem would have been solved long ago. They still have two and three houses; and my folk, who are doing the most important work in the midst of this discontent and this scandalous, dirty treatment which is being meted out to them, are beating all records in the building of ships and in the repairing of ships.
  Here is a letter. I have had many resolutions. You would think they were foreigners I was asking for. The letter says:
  "I am a soldier's wife and have never had a house. I have always stayed with my mother, but owing to serious illness of my brother there is now no room for me or my three years old daughter. I am at present staying with a married sister at the above address but she can only put me up meantime as she herself is crushed. What is worrying me is this, that my husband, after doing 16 years in the Army, is now on his way home from the Middle East minus his arm, and has no home to come to."
  There is a state of affairs for you.
  Mr. Gallacher: That is what the business men have done for Scotland.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Away for 16 years fighting for his country. Where is his country? His wife and wean have not a

  615
  home anywhere to lay their heads. It could be truly said to-day of the folk I represent, and it was said about the Founder of Christianity:
  "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head."
  That is Scotland for you. That is what the Tories have done for Scotland, and I am asked to support them because they are in the Government. Never. As a result of these conditions here is what I am faced with now, and what this Committee will have to face. All the bluffing will not bluff this away. This is from the shop stewards of the Clyde, a resolution they passed:
  "We view with alarm and great concern the present living conditions of the people in the Burgh of Clydebank. We draw attention to the mass of citizens who are still without a home, living in unsatisfactory conditions and having to travel long distances to and from work. We condemn the Government for the inadequacy of its housing policy and its decision to allocate only 200 houses to the Burgh of Clydebank. We view with alarm the ultimate effects of prevailing conditions and the possible loss of additional lives through the ravages of consumption and other diseases. Believing that the housing of bombed-out people is an essential part of the war effort, affecting not only the problem of production but the morale of the citizens, we call upon the Government to declare Clydebank an emergency area and to utilise all the resources at its command in material and labour, so far as present conditions will permit, in a great national effort to rehouse the homeless people."
  That has been passed by the shop stewards, and I think our Chief Whip might hand it over to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland so that there may be no mistake made about that.
  There are other hon. Members wishing to speak, and I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, but I would appeal to those representing Scotland to view this seriously. Being nice to me is not worth anything to me. I want the houses, and we will have to get the houses. I do not want to breathe out any threats. I do not want to say, "I will stop the Clyde"; I do not want to say, "I will stand by you if you have a token strike." I have said to them, "No matter what happens you must not stop work. Those who are not doing their best at the moment to increase production are traitors to their country." But with my point of view, and knowing the hellish
  616
  conditions men and women have to live under at the moment, think of that letter A man has lost his arm fighting for his country. If he was the only one, it would not be so bad. Some of my friends would give me a house to give him and his family; of course they would. But there will be hundreds—no, thousands, like that for whom no provision is being made. Go to the War Cabinet and tell them that we must have houses. It is as important as anything else in order to win the war. Think what these folk in Clydebank have endured. Talk about equal sacrifice—think of the sacrifices they have made, have endured, with hope springing eternal in the human breast that the Government would see they were not treating them fairly. We could not treat the Germans worse; the German prisoners are treated better, and the Italians.
  But our own folk are so loyal, they love their native land, they want to win the war, they want to win for a better world. They honestly believe that we shall get a better world after the war, but at the moment, as far as Clydebank is concerned, they see not the slightest glimmer. They say, "If they do this to us during the war, what will they not do to us when the war is won? We remember what happened after the last war, we shipbuilders in the Clyde, after we had given up everything," they say—I along with them. I asked them not to give up work, to give up trade union rights which were not ours to surrender but ours to defend. When the war was over we were flung on the scrap heap, not old and done men, but the best and finest any country in the world ever had. A stupid ruling class allowed them to go roving the streets with nothing to do, Satan finding "some mischief still for idle hands to do." We do not want that to happen again. We want to give some indication now that it will not happen again.
  The Prime Minister can go away to America and soothe the savage breast of the Americans. I heard him to-day, I listened to him very carefully, and I am a great admirer of his. I have seen the day when I was his only supporter in this House. He can go to America, straighten out the difficulties there, go over to Algiers, listen to the French, and do what he can to smooth things out there too. Here is a problem at home

  617
  which is cutting the very vitals, the very foundation of the family life of our country, and no one knows better than the Secretary of State and the two Under-Secretaries the great high ideal that has been passed on to them, so that,
  "Be it ever so humble, there's no place like home."
  Our national poet, Burns, said well that our great high ideal was:
  "Tae mak' a happy fireside clime
  Tae weans and wife;
  That's the true pathos and sublime Of humanlife."
  Mr. McKie: I am glad indeed to have the opportunity of following my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), who, as usual, has spoken with such heat. I ought to say something, not by way of apology but by way of explanation, of my interruption. He was dealing with housing conditions in Scotland generally, and I thought that he was in danger of misleading the Committee about what was being done in regard to temporary housing accommodation for those who are engaged in national work of some kind or another in Southern Scotland. I think that his answer to my interruption showed that he was to some extent in agreement that he had exaggerated the temporary housing shortage. Let me assure him that in many areas of Southern Scotland —I do not know all of them, but in those I do know about—the housing position, due to the temporary influx of workers, is very bad; and I myself 18 months ago had conversations with those responsible, in order to see whether something could be done. The hon. Member must remember that his words go a long way beyond this Chamber. His book, "My Life of Revolt," with its foreword by the present Prime Minister, has been very widely read throughout the world. His words might easily be quoted in enemy broadcasts to illustrate the perverted view that the enemy wish to give of our housing conditions here.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I had no desire to make that speech to-day. I have twice spoken here about housing conditions on Clydebank, and the reason I made that speech to-day was that I was driven to it. If conditions had not been so terrible, I would not have made it. What I said was that in all my travels I have seen thousands——
  The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie), having made his point, can continue with the rest of his speech, and then it will be all right.
  Mr. McKie: I have spoken in no spirit of hostility to the hon. Member, but only as a tribute to the universal esteem in which he is held. Nobody would wish him to step across the line. Then there was his statement as to what had happened as a result of the bombing on Clydebank. We all know that the bombing on Clydebank during two nights of 1941 was very severe, in fact, devastating. At the same time he will agree with me that Scotland as a whole in regard to the bombing of house property generally has come off very lightly indeed compared with South Britain. I am sure that many of the hon. Member's colleagues in the Labour Party—I see the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) here, for one—could give him instances of far more terrible damage
  The Deputy-Chairman: They would not be in Order if they did
  Mr. McKie: I think I am in Order, and you will at once correct me, Mr. Williams, if I am not, in suggesting that, bearing in mind the experience of many of the bombed areas in South Britain, the hon. Member has somewhat exaggerated what has happened in Clydebank. I think I am the only county Member who has had the honour of addressing the Committee to-day
  Lieut.-Colonel Thornton-Kemsley: It is not for want of trying on our part.
  Mr. McKie: What we have heard from hon. Members on both sides has illustrated the fact that every Member representing a Scottish constituency, urban or county, is fully seized of the importance of the housing question at the present time. We all realise the importance of agriculture at the present time, and the part which it is likely to play in the post-war period. I suppose it would not be an exaggeration to describe that as being at least a 20-years' period. Realising that, everyone wishes to impress upon the Scottish Office the importance of as soon as possible—I stress those words—coming forward with a comprehensive programme. I well realise—and I said so in a Debate on

  619
  housing at the end of March—the difficulties before the Scottish Office at present. They have been mentioned to-day by Members on both sides, even those who were criticising the Government for their lack of energy and initiative. There are the difficulties of providing men and of providing materials. I hope that the Government have this matter very seriously in mind. I represent a constituency where the rural housing problem bulks very much more largely—and that is putting it mildly—than the urban housing problem. Representing a constituency such as the Province, or Kingdom, of Galloway—for such it is, although you will not find that title marked on any map—I have a special interest in this problem. My constituency, so far as rural housing is concerned, is rather sharply divided. I think I might in speaking of it, with apologies to Julius Caesar, paraphrase the opening words of the first chapter of his "De Bello Gallico":
  "Omnia Galwegia in duabus partibus divisa est."
  "All Galloway is divided into two parts." There are the stewartry of Kirkcudbright and the county of Wigtown. That paraphrase conveys some idea of the sharp distinction which exists between these two counties in this matter. I do not want to bore the Committee with figures, but I have provided myself with one or two, which show the position in my constituency as a whole and that between the two counties. We have heard a lot about the sins of omission in respect of housing in the inter-war period. I am told by one who is very intimately connected with the local authority of Kirkcudbrightshire that in 1939 some 400 new houses for rural workers would have been their target. To-day the figure would be at least 1,200. In Wigtownshire conditions were so bad in 1939 that the local authority were unable to name any target which they thought would adequately express the number of houses required for rural workers in the area they were called upon to administer. Again, I am told by one intimately concerned with local affairs in Wigtownshire that at least 3,000 to 5,000 would be required in the immediate postwar period. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan), whose constituency runs down to the Wigtownshire border,
  620
  will, if he comes to address the Committee, as we are all hoping he will, tell us about the conditions which exist in his constituency. Those are just one or two figures showing what two rural local authorities deem absolutely imperative in the immediate post-war period.
  We have heard a great deal to-day about what was omitted during the interwar period. Scorn and ridicule have been poured upon the reconditioning programme undertaken by nearly every local authority in Scotland, urban and rural, during those years. I am not in a position to speak at first hand with regard to urban authorities, and I fully accept some of the statements that have been made as being not very far from the truth—if I may put it that way. But in the rural areas the shells of houses erected in some cases 150 or 200 years ago are often still very good. The insides admittedly are in a bad way: the lath and plaster partitions, owing toߞ—
  Mr. Sloan: Damp
  Mr. McKie: Yes, damp, and the quick succession of tenants, not all paying strict attention to the welfare of their houses—[Interruption]—yes, and the omissions of the landlord, leave much to be desired. But the local authorities, on inspection, declare the shells of these houses to be absolutely adequate and well worthy of the reconditioning provided for under the Rural Housing Acts. With regard to reconditioning, I want to give two figures, for Kirkcudbrightshire and Wigtownshire, again illustrating the point I have endeavoured to make about the difference in the position in these two counties. The last time I spoke in this House, some seven or eight weeks ago, on what we had done with regard to reconditioning the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton)—I regret he is not in his place, but no doubt his hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) will take me up if he disagrees with what I am going to say—asked me how many houses I had built under the 1938 Act. My answer was "None," because that Act had only been in operation some 12 months before the outbreak of the war. Although I obtained two estimates—and even then the size of the estimates amazed me—the war was upon us, and the general shortage of men and materials, about which we hear so much to-day, at

  621
  once began to operate and the whole thing fell stillborn to the ground.
  Mr. Sloan: What did you do?
  Mr. McKie: I am delighted that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire has asked that point, because I was about to ask the hon. Member for Shettleston to convey to his hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton that after careful investigation I found, in the period 1934–39, I had reconditioned some 19 houses, which I think is not bad. Of course, I could not have done it but for Treasury assistance. I merely mention this now because I was not able to give the hon. Member for Bridgeton the information he then sought either with regard to building or reconditioning so far as I myself was concerned. I am sure the Government will have no regrets in having put down this Vote for discussion to-day. Members in all parts of the Committee have rightly shown that they are aware that the housing conditions in Scotland as a whole are lamentable and deplorable, and we all desire to know, without putting undue stress on the Scottish Office, what their intentions are in the future.
  It is only a few days ago since we passed in this House a Bill, the extent of whose ramifications cannot be foreseen, with regard to developing the water power of the Highlands. That is very good, and we all wish it God speed, but a Measure like that alone, involving as it does some 70 schemes, will call for a vast, comprehensive housing programme in the Highlands of Scotland. I only say that in passing as it would be out of Order for me to attempt to say very much about that scheme, except that some of us even now are not convinced that it will bring the benefits to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland that some hon. Gentlemen seem to envisage.
  Some passing reference has been made to the 1938 Housing Act. In the two counties that I have the honour to represent 32 houses were built under the Act. Some hon. Members have questioned whether that Act was worth while or whether anything really worth while had been done in building in consequence. I hope that the figure I have quoted of 32 houses in one year, until the war made the Act practically inoperative, shows what was done by one local authority whose resources are not very wide, as it is a fairly poor rateable area. Both counties that I
  622
  have the honour to represent have had allotted to them under the present house building scheme some 20 houses. That is all very well as far as it goes, but the figures I have quoted—and I have tried to be very accurate and not to indulge in extravagances—show that it only touches the fringe or outskirts of the problem. It is all very well as a foretaste, and I am not going be like the hon. Member for Bridgeton and the hon. Member for Shettleston and turn away the slice of bread because it is not the whole loaf. I hope that when the Joint Under-Secretary of State replies—and I realise his difficulties—he will be able, as a result of the Debate, to tell us a little more about the plans of the Government for immediate post-war building.
  We all listened to the Prime Minister's words to-day with the greatest attention and intense interest. He gave no dates about the future. Surely it would be a cautious statement to say that when June, 1944, comes round, and these Scottish Estimates are discussed again, the state of affairs in Europe may be very much better than it is to-day. That is why I urge upon the Scottish Office to give us as much information as they possibly can in regard to what they intend to do, during the period that immediately follows the war
  Mr. McLean Watson: I listened with considerable interest to the speech delivered by the Secretary of State. He had a number of very interesting things to tell us in regard both to health statistics and housing. At the week-end I read the speech, as reported in the papers, of the Secretary of State when he addresed the conference of local authorities in Edinburgh on the question of housing. I am not sure that he was not more interesting at the conference than he has been here to-day. At the Edinburgh conference, where he was meeting representatives of local authorities, who are always keenly interested in housing, he had a number of very interesting things to say. He was looking forward to the time when Scotland would be building 50,000 houses annually. I wish we could get even a proportion of that number just now
  It is all very well looking ahead to what we hope to be able to do after the war, but the housing situation in Scotland, whether in the urban or rural areas, is desperate. We require houses of some

  623
  kind to meet the requirements of our people. Up to now I have had a very strong prejudice against new-fangled types of houses. I have always had a prejudice against the concrete house and against the houses that have been erected for merely temporary purposes. I have to confess however that the situation is becoming so desperate in Scotland that I would be prepared to accept almost anything, so long as it was a shelter. Our people are becoming over-crowded and disease is developing as the result of overcrowding, and conditions are so uncomfortable that I would welcome any sort of expedient that the Scottish Office might be prepared to bring forward to give us relief from our present housing situation.
  I assume that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will reply to this Debate and I am rather pleased at the prospect, because I would like to mention one or two things of which I would like him to take note and to which I would like him to reply. The Secretary of State referred to the position in Scotland with regard to tuberculosis and mentioned how it was developing. I would like some information on what the Scottish Office propose to do in view of the situation in the county of Fife. The Joint Under-Secretary of State knows that county very well. I hope he will be able to tell us what it is proposed to do in view of the situation which has recently been created in the county of Fife. We have a first-class sanatorium, and at the last meeting of the sanatorium board of the county council it was reported that the situation was becoming so bad that they were thinking of closing down part of the sanatorium. A considerable number of cases are waiting for admission, and although there are beds available the shortage of staff is making it impossible for the sanatorium board to carry on. That is a very serious situation and I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us how the Scottish Office propose to deal with it.
  For a considerable number of years most valuable work has been done at that sanatorium, The board of which I was a member for a number of years have taken a considerable amount of pride in it. The sanatorium has a very fine situation and has always been run on the best possible lines. We are fortunate in having a superintendent who is an enthusiast
  624
  for his work. Yet we are faced with the situation that the sanatorium board are considering closing down part of the institution despite the fact that we have a long list of waiting cases. I agree that the position is difficult because of the inducement held out to young women to transfer from that sort of work to better paid occupations, but I wonder whether the Scottish Office are considering any plan whereby it would be possible to keep the institution properly staffed. Without a proper staff the only thing the sanatorium board could do would be to close down part of the institution. I hope that will not be necessary and that before there is any danger of any part of it closing down some steps will be taken to deal with the situation
  At the Edinburgh conference the Secretary of State told representatives of the local authorities what it was hoped to do before the war ended. He referred to the Advisory Committee of which the Joint Under-Secretary is chairman, and said he hoped that it would be able to do a considerable amount of work in acquisition of sites and putting in water and drainage and other services before building operations commence. I would like to know how far it is possible to enable local authorities to go ahead with plans. My right hon. Friend knows a burgh in my constituency which has had great difficulty in getting sites. The burgh is completely built up and there is little prospect of any extension. Can the Scottish Office do anything to get sites in a burgh of that description? It is true that a considerable area could be cleared and that the local authority are willing to clear some areas that have been ruined by underground workings, but the number of these sites is very limited and, apart from the extension of the burgh boundaries, I wonder whether we can have any guidance on what can be done in circumstances of that kind?
  At the Edinburgh conference my right hon. Friend declared himself a "small burghs man." I am glad he did so because I, too, am a small burghs man. I believe in small communities managing their own affairs. I have a prejudice against too big local administrative areas. There may be something in what he suggested to that conference, namely, that instead of large unwieldy areas, administered by a central committee, there should

  625
  be more Joint action between local authorities. I believe that it is sometimes very difficult because burghs are usually surrounded by county areas, and county councils are apt to look upon themselves as the big brothers of the smaller burghs within their areas and that sort of cooperation among local authorities would not be satisfactory. However, I hope we shall have more co-operation between local authorities concerning the problems of housing, water supply and other services that could be jointly undertaken even by a county local authority and the burghs within its area.
  I would ask the Joint Under-Secretary to tell us what reply has been sent to the representations which come from the Burgh of Cowdenbeath for a deputation with regard to housing. The housing situation there has been desperate for years. Half the population are now living in overcrowded conditions. New houses ought to have been built long before the war. The local authority owns a considerable number of houses, but that has not met the problem in that area. There are old houses that have been going out of use and derelict areas within the burgh which have intensified the problem to such an extent that not only the local authority but independent bodies of ratepayers are trying to draw public attention to the situation. There are many houses which are really not fit for human habitation but which are being occupied and must be occupied, because the people have nowhere else to go. It is precisely because of that that I am prepared to accept anything in the way of a shelter until we can build proper houses, such as we had before the war. Even before the last war we built decent houses in Scotland.
  I have seen some of the temporary dwellings erected during this war to meet the new population which has come into my constituency. Hundreds of houses have been built in one area. Looked at from the outside they are not attractive, but I am prepared to accept 2,000 more in my constituency in order to ease the situation. I think I am correct in saying that in the burgh of Dunfermline the local authority have built about 2,000 houses. One house in this 2,000 becomes vacant every five months, I understand. There are hundreds of people who have been waiting for years for houses within the burgh of Dunfermline. In the meantime
  626
  all the available accommodation is packed.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the difficult question of furnished, lodgings. I agree that it is very difficult, but in my constituency people have been glad to accept accommodation at almost any figure because of the demand for houses. Single accommodation has been offered by people who, normally, would never have thought of offering accommodation. We have had to surrender a great many of the privileges we have hitherto enjoyed; we have had to do much that we have not liked. Can we be told whether there is any hope of the Treasury ban being to any extent waived? The Treasury have said that there must be no capital expenditure by local authorities on housing and that there must be no acquisition or preparation of sites. Can my right hon. Friend tell us that he is prepared to go to the Treasury or the Cabinet and ask for a relaxation of that ban? I think we should be prepared for the end of this war, and nothing is more urgent than the provision of houses as soon as the war ends. Surely it is not asking too much of the Scottish Office that representations should be made to the Government to relax this ban on local authorities. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) that the Government must bear the sole responsibility for nothing having been done in regard to housing. That is not so; local authorities must bear some part of the responsibility. But they must be allowed now to make some preparations for the end of the war. The war may end sooner than we expect and I agree with what my right hon. Friend said at the Edinburgh conference, namely, that we should not slither into the post-war years, without having everything ready for a great attack on the housing problem in Scotland.
  Something must be done in the burgh of Cowdenbeath. I thought some years ago that the place would die Nearly a score of collieries round about the town were closed, but despite the necessity of having to travel to other places for work, the population insist on living there and are determined to make it their centre in the future, as in the past. I thought that when pits closed the population would have been spread around other parts of Fife, but that is not being encouraged

  627
  now. Colliery companies which refused to find houses for their workers, are not erecting houses. They are looking to the local authority which is not inclined to erect houses around a colliery, with the result that thousands of miners have to travel to work by bus and train. Formerly, their work was almost at their doorstep, but now that has changed. So far as Cowdenbeath is concerned we shall have a large population there in the future and I hope my right hon. Friend will be prepared to meet representatives of the local authority and to discuss with them the serious position in that burgh.
  Lieut.-Colonel Thornton-Kemsley: I rise to make three points. The first is about housing, the second concerns partly housing and partly health, and the third is about ourselves. It is not remarkable that this Debate has centred almost entirely around housing. The need for us to build, and to build quickly, after the war a great many houses is so great that it requires us to adopt bold and, by prewar standards, revolutionary methods if the demand is to be met. Let me explain what I mean by revolutionary methods. We are proud of our Scottish houses. They are built to last. Like the quarried stone of which so many of them are constructed, they are weather resisting and long lasting, and what they lack in aesthetic merit they make up in solidity. And the newer country cottages—I am thinking particularly of those constructed under the Housing of Rural Workers Acts —contain a high degree of sanitary amenities. We should not depart from these high standards lightly or wantonly, but I say that we must depart from them temporarily if we are to get all the houses we need after the war and get them quickly. We must not allow the good to be the enemy of the best. It is really, as I see it, a choice of evils. Either we can maintain our high standard and accept the inevitable restriction of output which solid construction, the provision of modern sanitation and shortage of labour and materials will impose, or we can waive our standards temporarily and go all out to put roofs over the heads of the people until such time as the better houses are ready for them. The hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson), who has just spoken, said he was prepared to
  628
  accept almost anything so long as it was a shelter. I agree with that entirely.
  I think we ought to recognise two types of houses—the standard house and the emergency house. Let the standard house by all means conform with our high prewar standards, but let the emergency house be run up quickly, probably of prefabricated material, so that it will provide a shelter quickly for those people who will need homes. Let it contain the bare essentials for healthy life—two apartments, a cooking stove, a wash-house with a copper, and little else. I have seen plans of apartment houses of this kind which have been prepared in his spare time by the architect of one of our educational authorities. He describes the houses as caravan cottages. They are a sort of temporary house which can be run up quickly in sections and which would be placed on the corner of a plot of ground which will not later be occupied by the standard house and, when labour and materials are available for the construction of a standard house, it can be put up without disturbing the people who are living in the temporary house, so that in time they can transfer to the standard house, and the emergency house can then become a stick house, a pony shed, a games room or what you will. I think that is a good and a sensible idea and that there is a great deal to be said for it. I am sure that if the Secretary of State adopts a plan of that nature, as I hope most fervently he will, he will meet with criticisms from amenity groups and from societies for the preservation of this and that. He will be called a vandal and a despoiler of the countryside, but I do not think he need mind that at all. He has imagination and vision, and he will understand the needs of the people for whom I believe I am privileged to speak. These people are young, and many of them are in the Services. They are not having a very easy time. They have learnt to endure hardship. They are used to living in camps and huts, where they have to endure a very public existence.
  Mr. Montague: I think it will be useful and convenient if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give an idea of the kind of raw materials which he thinks should be used for these erections. Does he realise that raw materials in the form of bricks are more available than wood or any other alternative, and,

  629
  if you are using bricks anyhow, if you do not build your houses properly, you will have bad sanitation as well as a lack of other amenities which the country would demand.
  Lieut.-Colonel Thornton-Kemsley: I am envisaging a situation where you require thousands of houses and require them as soon as people come out of the Army. A kind of material which might be available is corrugated iron. I do not want my plan to rest on the assumption that these temporary houses are to be built with corrugated iron, but that is a material that might be used to put a roof over people's houses quickly until brick houses are ready for them. By all means let us have brick and stone houses and get all the sanitary amenities into them that we can, but I believe that if these young men and women in the Services came along here and pleaded before us, their elected representatives, they would say something like this: "We do not want to wait until you can build us houses which will last a lifetime. We do not mind about the bathroom or the hot water, or the flush closets. We have not been used to that sort of thing lately. What we want when we come home is a house of our own." Some of them will not come home. We cannot fail those of them who do.
  My second point is this: When the war is over, the Army will cease to require hundreds of camps in almost every corner of the country. Some of them are large, some are small, some are in lonely and inaccessible places, some are poor and some are very good indeed. I know, because in some measure I have been responsible for many of them. I believe these are assets which we should be able to acquire cheaply—assets which, if properly used, could be of immense benefit to the health of our people, and assets which may even help to provide a temporary solution for some of our housing difficulties. Some of these camps are at present occupied by anti-aircraft units—mixed units. They provide very good accommodation for women as well as for men. They would make admirable holiday homes. Others would house seasonal workers in agriculture or forestry and casual labour for almost every kind of development work. They offer the possibility of extending our system of youth hostels and of establishing summer schools and convalescent camps. St. Andrew's
  630
  House has an excellent liaison with the headquarters of the Scottish Command. It is an advantage not possessed by Government Departments in England. It is dealing with only one Command for the whole of Scotland. I want the right hon. Gentleman to keep in touch with the Scottish Command. Let him get a list of the camps erected all over Scotland. If he does not like to get it from them, let him get it from the local authorities. Let him plan now what can be done with them. It is not too early to work on the assumption that many of them will be available for his use.
  Finally about ourselves. I have never ceased to express the belief that we Scottish Members ought to be able to set an example by agreeing among ourselves upon the main outlines of our post-war internal policy. As we develop our ideas on the immense problem of Scottish housing, we shall find that the gifts we need to covet most for ourselves are boldness, imagination and the inspiration of high ideals. These gifts have been possessed in large measure by some of the greatest of our fellow countrymen. We can fortify ourselves with that thought as we labour together to build a better Scotland.
  Mr. Sloan: "Hope springs eternal in the human breast." Every year we look forward to this Debate on the Scottish Estimates as if it was going to bring us something material, and every year, I suppose, we just conclude our Debate and discover that there has been nothing accomplished. It is not at all surprising when we look round the House and see the number of Members who are sitting still at this hour—an adequate proof that even Scottish Members have no interest whatever in a Scottish Debate. They only come to make speeches. Having made their speech, they do a bunk. They disappear one by one until by the time we reach the last speaker there is no audience to address.
  Lieut.-Colonel Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member himself has only just returned.
  Mr. Sloan: I always come back. I think we must agree that there is a tremendous amount of futility about these Debates. There is plenty of excuse for absenteeism from this House but none when it comes to the question of the

  631
  collieries. I was attending a doctor and did not hear a good deal of the Secretary of State's speech, but what I did hear was not very promising. If the doctor had known, he would probably have given me a prescription not to come to the House at all to-day. I begin with the question of Scotland's health. I think that no Member can look upon it with equanimity and say that there is anything to boast about in the health of Scotland to-day. I have heard statements during the Debate that Scottish children are better fed and better clothed to-day than ever they were. If that is so, it is a tremendous indictment on what they had to suffer in the past, because I can find no evidence that the children of Scotland are well-fed to-day.
  There are some aspects of the health problem that the Secretary of State did not touch on. One which deserves some consideration concerns maternal mortality. I have always wondered why maternal mortality in Scotland is 100 per cent. higher than it is in England. I can understand why the mortality of the Scottish regiments is higher than that of the English, because they are always called upon to do the heavy and difficult jobs. They are always called upon to be in the van of an advance and to cover up a retreat. Therefore it is not surprising to find that the casualties among Scottish regiments are much greater than those among English regiments. The Secretary of State ought, by this time, to be able to answer the question why maternal mortality in Scotland is so high. He has expert advice at his command, and he has set up large numbers of committees, some of them approaching mass meetings in size. There is the Advisory Committee on Education, and I am sure that in his early days the Secretary of State has addressed smaller audiences under the name of demonstrations.
  Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentlemen has just made a serious point. He said that the mortality at birth is 100 per cent. greater in Scotland than in England. Could he give figures in support of that?
  Mr. Sloan: Yes, quite easily. I should have thought that my hon. and gallant Friend, having been a member of a large local authority covering a population of 1,250,000 which has a higher maternal
  632
  and infant mortality rate than any other area in the country, would have known the figures without asking for them. In order to satisfy him, I will give the figures. From 1931 to 1935 the average for Scotland was 6.1 per 1,000 births. There was an improvement later, but the figures to-day are 4.7 for Scotland and 2.6 for England and Wales.
  Those of us who are connected with the mining industry are sometimes shocked at the tremendous mortality in the mines. When disasters take place the Member for the constituency concerned puts down a Private Notice Question to the Minister of Fuel and Power, and in his answer he always expresses sympathy with the relatives of the deceased. Mining is the most dangerous industrial occupation, but dangerous though it is, it is far less dangerous than child-birth. If we had the mortality in the mines that we have among our mothers, there would be revolution. The mining mortality is about one per four maternal deaths. We remember those alarming figures which old Herbert Smith used to dish out about an army marching and one falling out every yard injured and one dying at every so many yards. We could multiply that by four, and that would be the number of maternal deaths. We are entitled to know from the Secretary of State what is being done to reduce this heavy mortality rate. It is a curious fact that although the incidence of many diseases and mortality has been considerably reduced, maternal mortality has remained almost stationary, if it has not slightly increased. Here is a field which the Scottish Office should surely enter. We have targets in all directions. We have targets for coal production, and every pit has its target. Could not we have a sort of inverted process and try to see how low we can reach in the figures of maternal mortality?
  Closely related to that question is infantile mortality. Here again Scotland has very little to her credit, because she has a much higher rate than England. With the exception of some Colonies or dependencies that are governed by the English, Scotland in this respect is, to use a colloquialism, the world's worst. In the quinquennial period I have mentioned the rate for England and Wales was 57, while for Scotland it was 77. If we take countries comparable in size with Scotland, we find the situation much aggravated

  633
  because Oslo had an infantile mortality of 25, which was the lowest in the world, and Stockholm a mortality of 35. That should be compared with the City of Glasgow, which has an infantile mortality of 104. These are matters to which it is very necessary that the Scottish Office should be able to give us some reply. Is there any reason why Sweden or Norway should have such a low mortality rate as compared with Scotland? We are a nation of some 5,000,000 people. There is plenty of room in Scotland for us. There is no need to build skyscrapers and to huddle all the people in the City of Glasgow. There is no reason why our population should not be dispersed. There is no reason why Scotland should not be a happy and healthy country. There is no reason why it should be a land of poverty, misery, ill-health and mortality.
  Given a fair chance, Scotland should be able to produce as good results as any other country. Scotland is a poor country. If it were not attached to England, it would be less poor. A country like Scotland, which produces 20,000,000 to 25,000,000 tons of coal per annum and could increase it to some 40,000,000 tons, ought not to be a poor country and ought to be able with her industries and her intellect to raise a standard of life for the people comparable with that of the best country in the world. The ambulance work is very good in its way and a necessary complement to our services, but it is a truism that prevention is better than cure. Scotland would like to know what is being done to stamp out disease in that country. In this field we have a black record. It is not a nice thing to have to say about one's own country, but when we talk about our mountains, lochs, straths and glens, it is merely a façade for its misery, poverty and disease.
  There is no question about the increase of tuberculosis. We may be deceived presently, because the mortality figures have slightly declined or at any rate are almost stationary. When there is an outbreak it is some time before the results are apparent, but we shall reap what we have sown, and the mortality rate will be a progressive one in the days to come. I agree that the question of housing is largely bound up with the question of health. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) spoke about the needs of his particular area. I can assure him that the
  634
  the needs of the neighbouring county are not less. A survey made by the medical officer and sanitary inspector of the county of Ayr showed that some 10,000 houses are required in the landward area alone.
  Mr. McKie: The hon. Member is speaking of the whole of Ayrshire and not South Ayrshire only?
  Mr. Sloan: The whole of Ayrshire. The population of the landward area is considerably less than 50 per cent. of the population of the whole county, when you include the big and small burghs responsible for their own houses. Speeches and blue prints will not produce houses, and the local authorities are at their wits' end to know what is to happen in the future. A voluminous questionnaire has been sent out, but when filled in it means nothing, because half of the information asked for is of no use at all to any Department. We want to know what are the prospects for housing in the very near future. This namby-pamby scheme under which a few houses are thrown at us is worth less than nothing. I would gladly surrender the few houses given to Ayrshire in order to save the trouble of allocating them. To allocate them is worse than to build them—if ever they are built. I have been in this housing business since 1919. I was chairman of the housing committee of my local authority from 1919 onwards and know some of the difficulties encountered in trying to build houses. Every obstacle you could think of was placed in the way.
  Mr. Kirkwood: By the Scottish Office.
  Mr. Sloan: By the Scottish Office, by the Government, by the members of the local authorities, by the landlords, by everybody concerned.
  Mr. Gallacher: The robber gang is always on the job.
  Mr. Sloan: Before you could get started at all the first question was the cost. We had that from the Chancellor of the Exchequer when we were discussing the Beveridge Report. He was in favour of the principle of the Beveridge Report but had to consider all financial aspects of it. If we are to consider all the financial aspects of housing, we shall be in no better position than we were in 1919. Then we had to borrow money. They said,"You cannot build the houses until you borrow the money." We borrowed

  635
  the money at 6 per cent. and kept it and paid 6 per cent. to the people who had lent it, and then after 18 months or two years we had to send the money back to them.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) said that if there was sufficient material and labour, there ought to be no difficulty in housing the people. But what about the land? That was the bugbear with us for years. Are we to have to begin all over again the old game of applying for compulsory orders before we can get on to the land to build houses? It is both expensive and a delaying action of the most deplorable kind. If we are to be held up by a few pettifogging landowners, how are we ever to face the building of the 20,000 or 25,000 houses required in the county of Ayr? We cannot go on in this way. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs has read a letter. Everybody knows the state of things in my own village. We require double the houses because of the fluctuations of industry. It is largely a mining area there, and new developments are to take place. We have had a committee, the Coal Committee, running round our county in motor cars. It was set up by the Secretary of State to inquire into the future of coal in Ayrshire, but not a single representative of the Ayrshire miners was asked to serve on it. Not a single representative of our miners' unions was asked to act on that committee—and we can see them running about our county in motor cars, fixing the location of industries for the future while the people directly affected have not been asked to form an opinion at all.
  Mr. Johnston: On a point of correction. Do I understand the hon. Member is referring to the Coal Committee under the presidency of the Solicitor-General? If so, there are representatives of the Scottish Miners' Federation on it.
  Mr. Sloan: If my right hon. Friend had paid a little attention to what I said, he would not have needed to make his correction. When he set up the Committee he selected a representative not from the Scottish miners but from every area in the Scottish minefield with the exception of the one area where there are likely to be large developments. He has Lanarkshire very well represented—a
  636
  dying area—and, it is a remarkable thing, he did not forget to have the Ayrshire coalowners represented on his Committee. It is probable that we could have offered some advice. We have a board of over 20 representatives, and it is quite possible that some of them would have been able to offer advice on the development of the coal measures and housing for the people. There are areas where the coal measures are being worked out and other areas where it is intended there shall be, huge developments, and surely it would have been most reasonable to ask our people what are the prospects of development and where they thought houses should be built. But no, they did not have that opportunity.
  Housing in Ayrshire, as in all other areas, is a most acute problem. How industry is to be carried on without housing I do not know. I heard one hon. Member say that he knew of a person who had been waiting eight years for a house. We have grandchildren who have been waiting for a house, and there is not the slightest possibility of their being housed. All our houses have been built to meet the overcrowding situation and for clearance purposes, and there is not the slightest possibility of newly-married folk getting houses. We have some who married before they went up to the Forces and we have others who were married during the time they were in the Forces. They will come back to the same conditions that existed when they left. Therefore, it is necessary that the strongest possible action should be taken. I do not know how long we have to wait. We do not know whether the war is to end next year, the following year, or the year after that. All we do know is that the war will come to an end some day. We are unable to place a period upon it. But are we to have no houses built, irrespective of how long the war goes on? If so, we shall be accentuating a very grave and difficult situation. Drastic action must be taken. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on his recent honour, because it is an honour not only to him but to the whole of the working class in Scotland. I therefore congratulate him, but, having done so, I hope that he will be able to provide us with some answer to the difficult problem that is facing the local authorities as regards both health and housing.
  Mr. Francis Watt: Before I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland I congratulate the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) upon being in such good form after visiting his doctor. This Debate has shown us clearly two things. The first is that there is a universal belief among Members of all parties that there is an acute shortage of housing in Scotland. Secondly, there is a universal desire from all those Members that something should be done about it as soon as possible. The housing trouble in Scotland has been developing for some considerable time. It is not something which has just happened suddenly. I think one of the main causes of the present position is the distress which has existed in Scottish industrial areas for a good many years, and has had a gradual repercussion upon housing. When my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) was speaking there was recalled to my mind the time when he had not attained his present position of an elder statesman and had only been four years in the House. I was then an apprentice in Glasgow, and the office in which I was engaged had to do with houses in Clydebank. They were owned by very poor people, and the tenants were very poor people. The tenants were unable to pay their rent, and because of the distress of the tenants the owners were not in a position to keep the houses in proper repair, and so there was brought about a vicious circle in which the property gradually declined. I think that is a position found in many parts of Scotland.
  Accordingly, unless you have some fabulous prosperity and find the working classes able to pay very much higher rents— which seems to me at any rate unlikely—private enterprise will not be able to cope with the working-class housing problem It is a problem which must rest with the Government, and we must all ask what the Government are going to do. There is both an immediate shortage and a general problem. To meet the immediate shortage it is obvious that whatever materials the right hon. Gentleman can find must be utilised to tide aver the difficulties which are going to be very acute when men return from the Services. There remains a wider problem, and this Debate shows that it is time we had a long-term programme. In Edinburgh we are fortunate in having an Advisory Council, composed of three local men, who are going to study
  638
  the problem of houses and replanning. The Edinburgh Corporation built and reconditioned over 28,000 houses at a capital cost of over £7,000,000, and as a result the density of population in Scotland is just half of that in Glasgow.
  Mr. Buchanan: Does the hon. Member say that because they have built these houses the density of population in Edinburgh is only half that of Glasgow?
  Mr. Watt: No, if I gave that impression, I wish to correct it. I only desire to say that at the present moment, as I understand, the density of population in Edinburgh is roughly half that in Glasgow. What I was going to say was—and I think I am entitled to say it—that we have a very far-seeing Corporation in Edinburgh, and what Edinburgh can do to-day Glasgow can do to-morrow. I know Glasgow housing conditions fairly well, having had the misfortune to be a property owner in that town, and nothing more discouraging to private building could take place than in Glasgow, where, despite derating, the rates, so far from diminishing, have tended to rise. In Edinburgh the rates remain the same. If Glasgow had only managed its affairs as well as Edinburgh, then Glasgow might have shown an equally good position. Good as is the work that Glasgow Corporation has done, there is still scope for improvement. In my constituency we have perhaps the most ancient and historic part of Scotland, but ancient and historic buildings are not necessarily hygienic when we are seeking places to live in. I certainly hope that that aspect of my constituency will in time disappear. I am glad there has been this Debate and that the right hon. Gentleman has shown some interest in housing in Scotland. Speaking for myself, and I think for all Scottish Members, I say that anything we can do to help will most gladly be done.
  Mr. McNeil: Before the last speaker got up I was feeling a little sorry for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, because the course of this Debate has been mainly on housing, and he seemed to have had a bad date. I wondered if my hon. Friend was trying to draw the fire of the Secretary of State, because he certainly made a most provocative and, in my opinion, exceedingly ill-founded speech. As far as I followed his argument, it seemed to me a plea to

  639
  Glasgow Corporation to solve the housing problem by making building more profitable to property owners in Glasgow. If the hon. Member's associates 100 years ago in Glasgow had accepted their obligations and discharged their duties before there was any rating problem, then this Debate would not have taken the course it has taken. It is because in these cities houses were built without much reference to public health considerations and certainly with no reference to town planning that the bulk of our programme has become so great a problem for the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Health.
  I will not attempt to compete with the picture put before the Committee by my hon. Friends the Members for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay). I would only add that in my Division there is the same acute problem, and I find some pleasure in remembering that the first speech I made in this House was on that subject. At that time I pleaded that improvised methods should be adapted to the needs of these particular distressed areas, but nothing was done. The Scottish Secretary assured the Committee that the country had been combed for labour and material to meet this urgency. I say without qualification that if that is not an untruth, it is at least an inaccuracy. If there was nothing more important in the mind of the Minister than providing some immediate contribution towards the solution of this problem, he would comb these areas and get some results. In my Division a large number of houses have been requisitioned by the Service Ministers. Two of them were houses that we had been forced to set aside for the needs of bombed-out families.
  When I was discussing housing and this matter of requisitioning, the Minister concerned said that if he could get huts he would not make these demands upon my Division, but at a conference subsequently with another Minister that Minister said he could get huts. I think that if the Secretary of State was really determined to put aside the obstructions put up month by month, he could clear scores and hundreds of houses of Service personnel who are using, as offices, buildings which are suitable for dwellings. I do not suggest that that would solve the problem, but conditions are so acute and distress is so
  640
  great, not in terms of sentiment but in terms of sheer arithmetic, that any contribution should be seized upon. Anything that would lighten the situation would be welcomed. One thing that might be done is the method of putting houses at the disposal of working men, not for whole-time domestic use, but for use during the working week. That would be some contribution. Nobody wants to turn a Scottish Debate into a competition of misery. We would rather be talking about the health and achievements of our people, but we cannot escape from this problem.
  At the opening of the Debate, the hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill) talked of the three phases of housing, the immediate, the rush-hour and the long-term policy. The hon. Member who has just sat down said he was glad that the Secretary of State had a long-term programme and paid a tribute to the city of which his constituency is a part. I cannot leave this subject without saying that no longterm housing programme has yet been promulgated by the Government, nor, if we are to be honest, can there be any, until certain basic conditions have been examined and decisions upon them taken. In the course of our two-day Debate last year, when the Secretary of State had been putting before the Committee a not unattractive picture of Scottish industry, I remember that I made myself unpopular by saying that those were all secondary considerations, and that until we knew the Government's intentions towards the Barlow Report on industry we could not proceed logically with our discussions
  Several hon. Members have referred to the sub-committee of the Solicitor-General's Committee which is considering the distribution of housing in relation to industrial needs. Indeed, my right hon. Friend referred to it in opening the Debate. The committee to which I have referred may report upon certain facts. It may tell us what the present rate of working is in the industrial life of Lanarkshire, and what, upon that estimate, are the housing needs of that county; but we cannot be tied to that, because we do not know, from the point of view of the whole nation, whether we are going to close down production in Lanarkshire when we get below an 18-inch seam,

  641
  which is all that they can say just now. Therefore, I say that we cannot have a long-term policy until we have had decisions not only upon the Barlow Report, but on the Scott and the Uthwatt Reports. I make it plain that, naturally, I am not attacking or condemning the Secretary of State for Scotland and his Joint Under-Secretaries because they cannot come to this Committee and give us answers about those three problems, but I would say that, whatever deficiencies show themselves, if and when we are left without a long-term housing programme, those three right hon. Gentleman will have to accept their share of responsibility for remaining within a Government and not making their demands upon that Government, if these problems seem to them as important as they seem to me.
  I want to turn to an aspect of the public health part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which is relevant to this Debate. May I make one general plea? I am not entitled to speak in this matter for anyone but myself and a few of my
  hon. Friends to whom I have spoken. I cannot understand why in this Debate, and indeed, in the Debate on the Ministry of Health Vote, we are always left in the position of having to debate the speech of the Minister without having in our hands the relevant figures. It is because the public health year ends in July, but I cannot see any reason why, for one year, the last quarter, for comparative purposes, should not be lifted out of the ending year and added to the nine months' period, so that we should have the public health year ending in March or April. We should thus have the annual report in our hands on these occasions and be in a position to discuss the figures. We are left without any real figures in our possession and without being able to make any factual judgment upon the health of Scotland in the current year. I do not want it to be suggested that I think our discussions cannot proceed without these figures, upon which to make comparisons, but, if I may say so without offence, there would be a slightly better comparison than that which the Secretary of State used this morning, when he referred us to the public health figures for the middle of last century. If he wanted to display how much progress we have made, I cannot understand why he stopped short of tak-
  642
  the figures for the Black Plague year, which would have shown an even better comparison.
  I want to refer only to one narrow factor of this picture, and that is to tuberculosis. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) said that he had figures in his possession which led him to believe that the mortality rate in Scotland would be stationary for this year. I am sorry that my estimate conflicts a little with his. I believe that the rate will be up this year. I think the figure will work out to be about 4,300, but that is only an estimate. At any rate, the figure is of such dimensions as to be alarming. That is an understatement. In his speech my right hon. Friend only touched upon this problem and said there was a shortage of beds, which we all knew. Then he referred to a new experiment in diagnosis, upon which we all compliment him and from which we hope for greater results. He said he had a waiting list of 500 tuberculosis patients needing hospitalisation. Despite his experiments in radiography and his
  scheme of allowances for the dependants of patients with pulmonary tuberculosis, upon which. we also congratulate him, he appears to be allowing himself a balance of only 300 beds.
  I am not in a position to estimate how many patients his units of radiography will throw off afresh, but it should not be difficult to make an estimate if we knew how many patients he means to handle for diagnosis. The Army, the R.A.F. and the Navy have all done large-scale samples with miniature radiography. We have the figures, but I would hesitate to accept them because they are a sample selected from a very narrow sector of population. From 1936 to 1940, radiography was used on entrants to a London East End factory, a total of about 10,000, and the percentage of incipient tuberculosis patients worked out at between 1 per cent, and 1·5 per cent. I think there is reason to believe that the figure will be below that percentage in the case of Scotland. When the Minister comes to reply he will therefore see that he is leaving himself a very narrow balance indeed when he has 300 beds as his margin.
  I wonder whether I might suggest to him that he could extend the number of beds for the incipient cases quite easily and with great effect. We all know that

  643
  the real problem is not beds, as a matter of furniture, but nurses, and we equally know the reason for the holding back of those nurses. A considerable proportion of those 1.5 per cent. of patients which we may accurately estimate will be shown , as incipient pulmonary patients by radiography are what we might properly call borderline cases. They are people with dull patches and therefore people who will express great fear if they are asked to go into tuberculosis institutions for further diagnosis or for treatment. I suggest that my right hon. Friend would be meeting the needs of these people and-partially solving this problem—with which he has shown little readiness to cope—if he were to set aside something in the nature of isolation or observation wards. Those people would have their prejudices set aside if they were given the assurance that they were not being put into a tuberculosis institution My right hon. Friend and I know that the prejudice is absurd, but still it exists, and one of his jobs is to break it. Many of these borderline cases will not need much more treatment than rest, food, fresh air and adequate nursing, and that can be given to them outside the normal institution. I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman can attempt this, without prejudicing the case which has been put up for housing, except by telescoping the population in our bigger houses around the perimeters of our cities and setting aside some of those houses as recuperation homes for some of those borderline cases. That is going to be a fairly hefty proposition. I also suggest that he would find nurses willing to volunteer for that type of case who are not willing apparently to undertake training in institutions
  I have talked rather longer to the Committee than I intended. I do not want in anything that I have had to say on these detailed problems to change the main trend of the Debate, which has been to say to the Government and to right hon. Gentlemen opposite that we cannot expect any dramatic or radical change in the public health position in Scotland, that indeed, we cannot hope for any substantial change at all over even a longish period, unless they address themselves adequately to the basis of all our problems in a public health sense in Scotland, that of housing, which is the
  644
  single biggest governing factor in the whole picture
  Mrs. Hardie: I do not intend to take up very much time, because the question of housing has been very well dealt with from every possible angle. The only thing I would say in that connection is that it is rather unfair to expect the Secretary of State for Scotland to make up in the middle of a war the arrears in housing which are due to neglect of Governments in the past. Therefore, while I admit all that has been said about the awful housing conditions and their effect on health, the point I want to raise is the continuing high infant and maternal mortality rates, and to see whether something cannot be done to remedy these evils. It is a disquieting feature that we have this increase in maternal and infant mortality. Housing conditions are responsible for a good deal of it, I know. When we get better houses the death-rate will fall, but I notice that in the Glasgow figures the death-rates have been higher in the better wards, where the housing conditions are not so very terrible.
  The point I want to press is the need for providing more maternity hospital accommodation where mothers can have their babies because of the very fact that there is this deplorable housing condition, which is very much worse than it was. After all, in the old days, although people had small houses, they were their own houses. Now there are very large numbers of married people living in rooms. I have had letters from young married women who, as soon as babies are going to appear, are turned out. I am not altogether blaming the landlady, because a room in a house where other people are living is very unsuitable for bringing up a baby. That makes it all the mare necessary that we should have alternative hospital accommodation, the shortage of which is chronic. As has been pointed out, we do not get up-to-date figures, so I am dealing with the 1941 report, which states that we had a total of 1,970 beds for maternity cases for the whole of Scotland. This is totally inadequate, especially in view of the terrible housing conditions. In the East End of London the infant and maternal mortality rates were brought down very greatly, not only by better housing conditions, but by providing this hospital accom-

  645
  modation, so I would urge on the Secretary of State that something more should be done to provide that accommodation. I have a cutting here taken from a speech delivered some time ago by the medical officer of health for Glasgow. He says there:
  "The demand on indoor accommodation for confinement, which was rapidly increasing before the war, has been intensified and is now very difficult to meet. Fear of raids, the black-out, and a shortage of midwives have contributed to the pressure but I am convinced that women will increasingly prefer to be confined in an institution rather than at home. This tendency is one to be encouraged and provided for, and steps should be taken to include further accommodation for maternity as part of the new hospital policy."
  I hope the Secretary of State will press local authorities to provide this extra accommodation, so that we may bring down this terribly high rate of maternal and infant mortality.
  I can think of nothing more tragic than a young woman dying in child-birth, leaving her baby behind and not knowing how it is to be provided for. There are too many cases of women dying, with four or five children, and the children being left without the care and attention of their mother. I therefore press the Secretary of State to push on local authorities. There are too many that have these old-fashioned ideas that because women in the past had a baby in a kitchen bed, that is a satisfactory state of affairs. They seem to forget that the death-rate in those days was very high indeed. They think that women did not die so readily, but, as a matter of fact, the death-rate among mothers in those days was terribly high. They will not move forward. I suggest that these working-class women who are doing what they are being urged to do—having families—should at least get proper care and attention. I hope that the Secretary of State will very strongly press all local authorities to provide the necessary accommodation.
  I understand that last year, when the Secretary of State was setting up a Scientific Advisory Committee, that Committee was asked to inquire into the reason for the high infant mortality rate. Has that Committee met? If it has investigated the matter and come to any conclusions about it, I would like to know its report. In addition to the high death-rate, there is a tremendous amount of preventable
  646
  sickness among the infant population. A very large number of babies die from chest troubles, especially in Glasgow, and I am quite convinced that the smoky atmosphere that exists in our cities is very largely to blame for that. I do not know whether in future planning something will be done to prevent the amount of smoke at present being put into the air, whether there will be some control of smoke in order that many of these infant lives may be spared.
  There is another point I wish to deal with. I notice from the Glasgow education authority's report, which I got this week, that while the health of the school children is fairly good, very largely, I expect, because they are being provided with milk and school meals, there has been a tremendous increase in skin disease. That increase is due to lack of proper care, and in many cases it is due to lack of cleanliness, due to dirty conditions. I am also convinced that improper feeding has something to do with that. Children are not getting the fruit and so on that they used to get. I hope that the meals being provided in the schools are calculated to see that the children are kept in a fairly healthy condition, that it is not just a case of filling them up with steamed puddings and something like that, but that something is done to see that the children get vegetables, and fruit if possible. I would like to see oranges, instead of going into the shops, being supplied to the school children and to the clinics. By those means I am sure those who need them most would get them.
  I wonder whether something cannot be done in an educational way to try and get a higher standard of cleanliness and hygiene among the people, even under bad housing conditions. I wonder whether something cannot be done through the schools to put out information to the parents as to the need for greater measures of cleanliness being taken. It is rather disquieting to read of so many mothers going out to war work and leaving their children, which is very regrettable. Apart from that, I think something might be done by teaching the children the need for cleanliness, and also, perhaps, by issuing a leaflet or adopting some other method like that to impress on the parents the need for cleanliness. I need not say that I agree with everything that has been said on housing conditions. We all get shoals

  647
  of letters, and when we go into the constituencies we get people clamouring, to us as to whether we cannot get them houses. I have one letter—it is one of many—from a woman who has six young children and is living in a single apartment. She says that the doctor is never out of the house. I do not suppose he ever is. Imagine a woman bearing and rearing six children in a single apartment house, without bath, hat water or any accommodation whatever. I could do nothing for her but refer her to the council. They have long waiting lists. There should be some emergency measures. In regard to some of the bigger houses, we might have some method of getting those people to let some of their rooms. I am one of the people who think we have to get the war stopped to get on with the real measures that are necessary to deal with the problem
  Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: After listening to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Spring burn (Mrs. Hardie), I am afraid I am tempted to feel a little annoyed with some of the suggestions of the hon. and gallant Member opposite, who is not here at the moment, when he carried improvisation to the extreme of suggesting that we might retain after the war Army huts and, even put up corrugated iron shacks and all sorts of temporary erections of that kind for the housing of the men, and presumably the women, coming home from the fronts. The basis of his argument seems largely to be that they were accustomed to these things in the past few years, and therefore they might be able to put up with these hardships for some time longer. I do not think that, because one has lived under hardships for a period it is a good reason for doing it for the rest of one's life. The fact that one has been accustomed to sleeping out in an anti-gas cape under a hedge during the war is no reason for living under those conditions after the war. It reminds me of a letter that Mrs. Carlyle wrote about her husband. She must have been rather irritated on that occasion with the sage of Chelsea. She said she never knew a man who could bear with such Christian fortitude the sufferings of other people. That is very largely the attitude of those people who are perfectly content to see other people put up with a certain amount more hard-
  648
  ship partly on the ground that they have already suffered hardship, partly, because they are not prepared to undertake the hard work and the planning on their behalf, the much decried planning which is unquestionably necessary if these postwar things are going to be done.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) rather astonished me with his speech, which was almost to the revolutionary Left for him. It was most remarkable, and I should like to congratulate him in his absence. He made, as I say, quite a remarkable speech—and; in contrast to his previous speeches in this House, a most progressive speech for him—a revolutionary effort. He criticised Beveridge because he did not lay sufficient stress on housing. It is difficult to consider housing in isolation. I think you must consider it against the background, against the whole question of want and poverty. One thing is quite certain: we must feel strongly on this subject, at least so long as this problem remains as serious as it is in Scotland to-day. More and more the Scottish Office, the Department of Health and public Departments will be called upon to undertake the rehousing and housing of the Scottish people. Their problem is more serious, as has been shown by my hon. Friends, even than the very serious problem in England and Wales, and that is serious enough.
  What I am concerned with is that we are passing now to a new criterion in the housing of our people; that is, we are passing away from the criterion of income and effective demand to the more real, and more just and ethical, criterion of need; and all these questions of housing and public health must to-day be related to the question of priorities on that basis. That is to say, that the people who need these things, the people who have earned them, and the people who are the productive members of our population, must first and foremost have first priority of claim in housing as in other things. It must not any longer be money which gains the priority. The criterion must now be need, not income and effective demand. It must not be possible for people to come along and say to the private enterprise builder, "I am going to make my first demand on these urgently needed materials which are in short supply, because I have the money

  649
  to offer." That must not be allowed. There must be a continuation of control of materials after the war, so that those who really do need are the first to have their needs satisfied, not those who come forward with ready money and effective demand. We must change our ideas in relation to the satisfying of priority claims in housing.
  This is purely a poverty question. You cannot separate housing and health; they are one and the same, and part of the general problem of the poorer classes of this community. We have had in the past, if you like, universality of sacrifice, but the fact that we have a housing problem among the poor and not among the rich is proof that we have had nothing like equality of sacrifice. In wartime, even as in peace-time, the poor continue to suffer from the lack of houses, as of other things. I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs should relate the question of housing and Sir William Beveridge's general solution to each other. On the questions of public health and housing, we have to regard them much more as one single subject for planning and for general consideration. The preventative scheme and the curative have to be regarded as one and the same, and in that relationship housing and health come very closely together. You cannot expect people to live together in a healthy and cleanly way in bal houses and bad surroundings.
  A great deal of emphasis has been laid on the needs of the industrial areas, such as Glasgow, Clydeside, and those places. I recognise the seriousness of their problem, and I am not making any comparisons or special claims; but we have a problem which I will not say is more serious or less serious but is in many respects different. In the Highlands and Islands of Scotland we are up against a very serious public health problem. Immediately you mention housing you are up against the difficulty that up to now there has been, outside the urban areas, such as there is in the Highlands and Islands, no real planning except in respect of the individual houses and a few small estates. There have been some estates settled by the Department of Health with loans and subsidies; but with always something missing which detracts from what you have done. You have failed to lay on water or you have failed to fence them off and to build side roads which lead to
  650
  the main and village roads. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) is so familiar with these matters that this perhaps sounds a little tiresome to him, but it is a fact that even now the Government Departments are still not planning these things as a whole, seeing them as complementary wants requiring co-ordinated schemes. They build a house and forget to put in sanitation, or they provide sanitation and forget to put in water to make that sanitation effective. That is not good enough. We hope they will at this stage map out these places and plan them in such a way as to allow for the immediate laying on of water and sanitation and other things which are necessary if you are to provide not merely a concrete block-house but an attractive home for men and women coming back from the war.
  Some have water supplies through the accident of being near the water mains of a nearby town or large village; but the Department of Health cannot take credit for having planned a single important water supply in the Highlands and Islands. It is all being left to the people themselves. They have still to trudge long distances with buckets to fetch water from the wells several times a day. It is mostly the womenfolk who have to do it, as the men are away working all day. It is too bad, when the officials go up there and say, "The house is on a good site and all is well"; and then go away again and forget about problems like water supply. Women should not be made to walk miles every day trudging through the mud to fetch water in buckets from the wells. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary and I myself do not have to do these things. We have to apply the test in these matters to ourselves before we can get any idea of the injustice of them. We have to feel strongly about how these things affect others; even more strongly than we do about our own personal comforts. The fact that we do not have to go to wells for our water supply, and that we do not have to go through all the miseries of being without sanitation, does not free us from moral responsibility and the practical duty of tackling this problem. I have bored this House for the last eight years in demanding water supplies for villages whose names are unpronounceable to anyone but myself in this House; but when it comes to a war you do not

  651
  relate the value of the citizens to the rateable value of the areas in which they live. You do not say to a man, "You are an able-bodied fellow, but there are only 500 of you in the whole island, and we do not think a penny levy would make it worth while conscripting you in this war." We cannot depart from the moral criteria.
  It is very easy to criticise: till someone says, "What would you do?" I admit that a lot has been done, and I am very proud that the Scottish Departments have provided a good number of houses, but they have left many to be built, and have left many of the old "black" thatched houses without sanitation or hope of it. It is no good putting sanitation into those houses; you must build new ones, with modern equipment. At present you leave it to a man to come along and say, "My house is no longer fit to live in, and I want a subsidy to enable me to build a new house." It is left very largely to himself to build a house mainly with unskilled help. It should not be left to an individual to decide when a house is no longer fit to live in. It is time that the officials of the Department made a survey of these villages, village by village, to find out definitely what houses are needed, and then drew up a blue-print, including in their proposals for these villages the most economical ways of providing electric light, water, sanitation, access to main roads, to the crofts and to the peat-fuel supplies and so on. It should not be left to individuals to plan one house down in a ditch and another on a hill, so that when we ask for water supplies we are told that they would be uneconomic. I agree that it is uneconomic in some places; but this is a question not merely of economy but of citizen rights and of human life. These are important considerations in war, and they should be regarded as important in peace-time too. We have a responsibility to these people when they are living for their country and not only when they are dying for it.
  There is a feeling among our local authorities in Scotland, and among the ordinary people there, that there is no real plan coming into being at present for housing. I should like an assurance from the Under-Secretary that a co-ordinated scheme for housing in relation to these public health questions of water, sanitation, and so forth is, in fact, coming into
  652
  being now. It is an extremely important question for everybody in the North of Scotland. It does not arise so much in the cities where you get hot and cold water and sanitation generally with all new houses. All these questions of the gardens before and behind a house and spaciousness and colour and so forth are quite new to the Highlands. I want to see the officials of the Department making a survey rapidly, with a view to providing all amenities and trying to make not just drab monotonous concrete blocks of houses, but homes with colour and space and air and light. These things will have to be done if you are going to attract the people back into these areas. The men in the Merchant Navy and in the Armed Forces do not want to go back to just four acres and a cow; they are sick of that, especially when it is coupled with unemployment and no prospects. If that is all they are offered, they will emigrate to the United States and Australia and other countries, which will be begging for our best men and women after the war. So long as you relate improvements and the provision of amenities to the actual rateable value of the small places, the position will always be unsatisfactory. These small places like the Isle of Scarp and the Isle of Bernera and so on, have, you say, a rateable value of only so and so and therefore justify no improvements. So long as you say that, you will make these places relatively unattractive in terms of amenities, just as the places with higher rateable values will be more and more attractive. We have to treat people reasonably as human beings and citizens, not just as rateable subjects, and we have to stop trying to balance the Budget at the expense of failing to solve these extremely important questions.
  Mr. Gallacher: The other day, when the Minister of Health was answering a Question on housing, I asked him if he had read a pamphlet by Harry McShane on housing in Scotland, and whether he would discuss it with the Secretary of State for Scotland; but, in view of the fact that Harry McShane is a Communist, I suppose that pamphlet will be on the Index, and untouchable by the Secretary of State and his very active assistant. I have another pamphlet here, on "Housing, an immediate programme for Scotland," by Councillor B. McCourt. It contains a very fine programme for im-

  653
  mediate action. It takes the form of a letter sent by the Scottish district of the Communist Party to the Scottish Office. Of course, they got the usual reply, that most of these things have been considered before and that most of these things will be considered again, but there was no suggestion of any immediate action. The thing that is wanted is immediate action to meet the immediate situation that confronts us. The hon. and learned Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill), who is Chairman of the 1922 Committee, suggested that party politics should be left out. He is a very broadminded, openhearted fellow and is ready to take us by the hand, and he thinks that if I would only leave party politics alone I would be of very great assistance. I am willing to make any concessions conceivable so long as we get houses, but Conservative party politics say, "Do not interfere with private ownership of the land," "Do not interfere with private enterprise," "Do not interfere with profits." How can there be any possibility of getting houses of a desirable kind unless you do something about the robber landlords and stop the bloodsucking profitmongers? It is not possible. As soon as you mention land hon. Members on the other side say, "I am finished." As soon as you mention anything that will solve the problem, it is an interference with the Conservative party outlook and is therefore going to introduce politics. Let anyone suggest to me any concessions needed to put up houses and I will make concessions; will the Tories on the other side say the same? "No," they say, "No interference with private property."
  The Secretary of State for Scotland and his very active Joint Under-Secretary used to march with me behind the banner, "Rent is robbery; profit is plunder," but the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. A. Chapman) seems to have got them just where he wants them. We do not seem to hear anything about the old slogans any more. You cannot solve the housing problem if you are going to maintain what is desired by the Conservatives of this House—a reduction of the rates on property and land. It is a shameful thing. The Secretary of State should read over and over again the speech made by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). Is
  654
  it more desirable, I ask any hon. Members, that the wife and child of the soldier should have the right to a home, than that the hon. Member over there should have the right to private property in houses? What a shameful business. I refer to the hon. Member who had the audacity to use this Debate to mourn his loss because he was not getting sufficient out of rent. Yet men, women and children are dying because they cannot get housing accommodation. He has never had to go without a meal or a bath.
  Mr. Watt: Neither has the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Gallacher: That is just where the hon. Gentleman is very much mistaken. It is only within the past few years that I have been in the happy position of having a two roomed house with bath, and the Secretary of State for Scotland and his assistant know that. It is only a few years ago since I was able to leave a single-apartment house and in my earlier years I had experience of slum life. I happened to be born in a slum and I got my early training in a slum, in the midst of most terrible poverty and that is something which cannot be erased from my mind. I hear these fellows talking about rents and property as though that were all that mattered. Will the Secretary of State answer the question, what are we going to do for the health and well being of the people. Is that soldier's wife and child to get a home? Will that soldier when he comes home again, be able to get a house? Those are questions that he has to answer. It is not rent he has lost, it is an arm he has lost.
  There is another question. If it is desirable to build and provide new houses for new workers what about the old stalwart workers who have been keeping the Clyde and some of the finest industries in this country going? The right hon. Gentleman has to answer that question put by the Member for Dumbarton Burghs. He has to answer the other questions which have arisen about maternal and infantile mortality. I remember the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mr. Barr), speaking here, quote Carlyle as saying that in the midst of abundance the people perish and a Tory on the other side got up and denied that there was any truth in that to-day. Will they deny it after hearing the Debate on Scottish housing and the figures of maternal and

  655
  infantile or tuberculosis mortality? I have always been accused of being for violence and revolution. If there is a fight on the part of the working class and violence develops, it may be very bad for some of the lads on the other side and those whom they represent. You might see some blood flowing here and there. You might hear cries of agony and that would be terrible. They cannot stand the thought of that between wars, and so I am condemned for my ideas as a revolutionary. But they do not mind how many deaths there are or how many perish, if people will only keep in their own back street and perish quietly of tuberculosis as too many of our people perish.
  Mr. McKie: The hon. Member has quoted what an hon. Member said in, reply to a quotation from Carlyle in this House a few weeks ago. I think the hon. Member who spoke on that occasion denied what Carlyle said in its application to the present time.
  Mr. Gallacher: It is impossible to penetrate the peculiar structure that covers the brains of the Conservative Members of this House, the anti-social Members. The hon. Member who objected to the quotation, said that it did not apply now, and I say that it does apply now. People perish now in the midst of an abundance of wealth.
  Mr. McKie: Does the hon. Member consider that Carlyle's words apply to-day?
  Mr. Gallacher: I will leave that. I only say that I am very sorry that the wrong people perish. I want to touch on one other matter that is very important. I have heard many things today that have been close to my own experience, every word of which I support but I remember that on different occasions when this question of Clydebank, Glasgow or other places have been raised and reference has been made to the large houses in the country, standing empty or half empty, the Secretary of State for Scotland has said, "I have given the local authorities power to take them over." That is all bunkum. It does not mean anything—not a thing. The local authorities that need housing have no empty houses in the country and the local authorities that have empty houses in, the country do not need houses to meet the problem of overcrowding.
  656
  There are any number of houses not far away from Clydebank but they are not under the control of the Clydebank council or the Dumbartonshire council but under some other council. Look at Glasgow and how it is packed and overcrowded and yet around the district there are any number of big houses to be found with two or three people living in them, or perhaps nobody at all. Yet the Glasgow authority cannot take them over. The authority that has the power over them is not concerned in taking them over. We ought to get from the Secretary of State a decision that he will take over every large house in Scotland unoccupied or only partially occupied, and that he will draw up zones and allocate those houses to the particular authorities that at the present time are in need of houses. All the measures that have been suggested for meeting the emergency should be put into operation without delay. The people perish in the midst of abundant wealth and I say here that, if we would save our people, we must provide our people with proper housing.
  Mr. Mathers: I have sat through the greater part of this Debate and I must say that it has clearly shown the vigour of the Scottish way of expressing things. We started with an excellent statement by the Secretary of State which was not wholly a pleasant one. In certain respects it was one that caused us great disquiet but there were certain pleasing features in that statement and I was glad to learn from it that his activity in respect of clearing the waiting lists of the voluntary hospitals have now developed so far that he was able to say that of the waiting lists of 35 voluntary hospitals that participated in his scheme, 15,000 patients had been removed from those waiting lists and dealt with in the emergency hospitals. That was something that was well worth putting on record and something about which we should be very pleased indeed when we think of the way in which these waiting lists for years grew up under the aegis of the voluntary hospitals. We found immense difficulty in having them dealt with and we are entitled to be very pleased now that even under the stress of war and indeed largely because of war these waiting lists have been cleared and that also the supplementary services with

  657
  specialist advice and all the rest of it that is offered more particularly to young people have now been able to record dealing with 3,700 patients. That is another feature of the Report with which we should be very pleased.
  It would be wrong to pass from the Secretary of State's description in respect of diseases in Scotland and not to give a due meed of praise in respect of his activity in these two particular directions. My hon. Friends and indeed Members in all parts of the Committee have deplored the rise in the incidence of tuberculosis, and the high rates of infantile and maternal mortality, and these have been emphasised in a way that clearly indicates the concern of the Committee about these conditions. But in respect of these, as in respect of many of the other points that have been made in criticism of the condition of affairs in which we are living the Secretary of State and those who work with him could reply "There is a war on." I am quite certain that that is the answer to many, if not all, of the difficulties we are facing at the present time.
  Before I leave the question of diseases I would like to put a question about venereal disease. I know it is too early to ask for anything in the way of results following the passing of the recent legislation on this question, but perhaps we can be told whether this dreadful scourge is still increasing, whether the Scottish Office believes that the new compulsory notification will be effective and whether some progress is expected in dealing with this disease? It is very largely a disease of war-time aggravation, if not of wartime origin. Indeed, I will go further and say that it is largely due to the evil of intemperance. It is remarkable how the question of dealing with the increase in drinking that prevails during war-time has not been tackled by the Government at a time when intemperance can be clearly indicated as one of the causes of the great increase in this disease. Any information that my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can give us on this matter will be welcomed.
  The great part of the Debate to-day has centred round the vexed question of Scottish housing. Every Scottish Member in this House represents people who are desperately in need of houses and who have required houses for a very long time. Like other Members I could cite
  658
  cases in my own constituency showing how great is the need. While we agree that the Secretary of State can say that there is a war on and that war conditions are militating against the solution of the problem, I think the urge that has been put forward to-day must give him a clear indication of the importance that is laid upon this matter by the Committee. I do not say that my right hon. Friend requires that urge, but if there is any action he can take to deal with this question, I am sure that the strong things which have been said to-day about the disgrace of housing conditions in Scotland will strengthen his hands.
  Whence has come this acute housing problem in Scotland? If we go back a long time I think we may find that it arises partly from the fact that many years ago Scottish houses were put up to last too long and that when local authorities with new ideas came to deal with their own areas, they found the cost of taking down houses so prohibitive that they jibbed at the expense. Certainly, the State has come along, especially since the last war, and has provided money in various ways for slum clearance and for dealing with overcrowding. I think that here we may find another reason for local authorities hanging back from doing what we conceive to be their duty. Changes have been made in the arrangements for dealing with houses and subsidies have changed so much that local authorities who were not too keen about dealing with their own problem decided to wait a little longer to see if they could get a better bargain from the State. Some local authorities have thought that people did not want to be disturbed in their homes and simply wanted to be left alone in homes that were not up to modern standards. That is another factor that has militated against the full development of Scottish housing.
  We cannot allow these factors to continue to stand in the way. There are, of course, other factors. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith), pointed out in an obviously well-prepared speech, that 82 per cent. of the houses built in Scotland had been built with State assistance, whereas in England the percentage of publicly subsidised houses was only 37½. That is a remarkable difference. Yet I could not agree with any English Member who said that that showed a carelessness

  659
  on the part of Scottish people with regard to the provision of houses. The fact is that Scottish people are more cautious about the way in which they use their resources. They do not like to commit themselves unduly to large expenditure without seeing the end of that expenditure and without seeing whether they will be able fully to carry the obligations they have taken upon themselves. That is why building societies cannot show anything like the progress in house building in Scotland that has been achieved South of the Border.
  Sir Edmund Findlay: Has it not something to do with the different rating system under which Scotland has suffered?
  Mr. Mathers: That suggestion has been made to-day but I am not seeking to enter into it; I was hoping to put fresh ideas to the Committee as to what might militate against the development of housing in Scotland. Scottish people, as I say, are reluctant to commit themselves in a wholesale way to great expenditure the end of which they cannot see but that is a feature which should not be too much condemned. Indeed, there is much to admire about people who do not wish to involve themselves in commitments which they cannot see the prospect of clearing within a measurable time. So the possibility is that these factors have militated against a development of our housing.
  We are told that, in order to meet the immediate problem that faces us—and the problem is a very acute one—we must go in for quick methods of providing our people with houses. I know so much of the evil of people living in overcrowded conditions. I have seen so much of the tragedy of young married couples living with their parents, that I am inclined not to be too scrupulous about how we provide for the housing needs of our people at present. Yet I react against the idea that was voiced by Sir John Orr at a meeting at Edinburgh the other night, when he talked about providing houses in the same way as we at present provide munitions of war, by mass production of pre-fabricated parts. The picture that he conjured up in my mind, when making that statement, was of an enormous expansion on modern lines of the "uglification" of the countryside which took
  660
  place during the industrial revolution, when brick boxes with slate lids were hurriedly run up for the workers who were recruited for the factories. This is a much greater problem than that which existed in the days of the industrial revolution, because of the increase of our population and the need that there is to deal with things more quickly. I cannot find myself reacting favourably to the mass-production type of house because it seems to me that it would place a stamp of sameness on the houses, which would be detrimental and would not help the people living in them.
  Mr. Buchanan: Does the hon. Member say that they should wait and wait, until each individual house is provided?
  Mr. Mathers: I have said I cannot find myself reacting as strongly as I did formerly against ,this mass production idea for I know how desperately houses are needed. When I put the other side of the picture, as I see it, before the Joint Under-Secretary, I am going to ask him what is the official view about the way to deal with it. On the other hand, instead of pre-fabricated small houses planted down in enormous numbers we have the picture given us to-day by the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok of huge barracks, 10, 15, 20 storeys high, built in the centre of cities. Again, I recoil from putting people into warehouses of that kind. I simply have to pose the problem, Where are they going? What is to be the policy? Have the Secretary of State and the Scottish Office thought sufficiently about these things to make their plans and to give us some indication of the way in which the problem will be met? I agree that speed is necessary, but I cannot see that the building of purely temporary dwellings will meet the problem in an adequate way. I have seen many temporary dwellings—I am sure they are still standing in the North of France to-day—which were put up for our Army between 1914 and 1918. When I was there shortly before this war they were still being occupied as houses, though they were never intended to serve that purpose. They were simply an excuse for the authorities in those localities sitting back and taking no adequate steps to provide their population with reasonable housing conditions. Much is said about slums. I am afraid that some

  661
  of that mass production either on the large scale of a single vast building, or the mass production of thousands of small houses, would be running the risk of creating new slums.
  I was much interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mrs. Hardie) about the need for whatever new houses are provided being kept clean. She cited the fact that soap and water are certainly available and I am sure it is the wish of everyone of us that, whatever is done in providing houses for our people, they shall be treated in a proper way, that the outlook of those who are given these houses will be raised and an endeavour will be made to get away from what might be described as the shim mentality, which would make a slum of any place, however well equipped it might he. We are glad indeed to be able to record that at least 95 per cent. of the people who have gone into new houses provided by public subsidies have made good. But the aim that we should have in providing for our people, even if we have to do it in ways which normally we react against, should be to provide dwellings which can be real homes. In those homes, let us hope, we can place a proper population which will realise the truth of the motto of the City of Edinburgh, "Nisi Dominus frustra," which is usually interpreted, "Except the Lord build the house they labour in vain that build it." I believe that the most important thing that we need to-day for the establishment of our people in proper conditions in the years that lie ahead when we are providing new homes is to carry into those homes a new spiritual outlook that will make them homes indeed and places worthy to live in and worthy of the motto that I have quoted.
  Mr. MacLaren: I make no apology for intervening in this Debate. The speech to which we have just listened is one of the most horrible declensions I have heard for a long time. When I think of the old days when Scotland was fighting on the housing question, and when I think of Sir Alexander Ure in this House, my mind goes back to Campbell-Bannerman. How did we face the issue in those days? Was it by the outpouring of vacuous nothings such as we have just listened to? Scotland was then l00 years ahead of England in housing
  662
  matters and we solved the problem years ago. Our task was to educate the English mind to the advance that Scotland had made. I was born and brought up in Glasgow, where we had the finest slums in Europe. When I left, 60 per cent. of the people were living in one or two-roomed apartments. In Glasgow and in Scottish towns we had the single apartment. You do not get them in England. So intense was the problem and so intense was the thinking on the problem that I may say, with due deference to English Members, that we had a clear view of the cause of the problem.
  We had a Rating Commission set up, of which Sir Alexander Ure was the chairman. I understand that the Government are now cogitating about some rating committee. I ask them not to waste further time but to get Sir Alexander Ure's Report, because we recognised in Scotland a long time ago that the three causes of bad housing were self-evident. The first point was that monopoly and speculation in land make an extension of building impossible. The second was that a rating system that might have been devised in an asylum makes housing an impossibility. Everybody who builds a house is rated in proportion to the rental value of it. No system that could have been devised could better stop building. We in Scotland in those days, round the year 1906, said that as long as this system of rating prevailed it was inevitable that, with the added burden of increased rates being levied on improvements, in the long run housing development in Scotland would be made an impossibility. The third point was the low wages, owing to the competition of the unemployed men to get the jobs of those in employment. We had these three causes running together—land monopoly and speculation; a rating system penalising improvement, and at the same time by not levying rates on the value of land withholding the land from development; and a low wages system, all conspiring to make an economic house an impossibility.
  I am intervening in this Debate because I know from experience the housing conditions of Scotland. They are the most appalling of any country in the world. It is not because Scottish people do not desire better houses. It is not because the Scottish mind has not been applied to the problem of an economic solution of its

  663
  difficulties. What horrifies me in 1943 is that I have to listen to a Scottish Debate on housing the prevailing assumption in which is that nothing has been thought about these matters in the past. I would ask those who are really serious about this problem to go back and find out what was being done on this matter in the past, when men did not come to the House and ask for a subsidy but said that the only way to solve the housing problem was to dissolve the rating system. Here we are faced with a fact that was self-evident long ago.
  The war breaks out, and housing is stopped. I have heard to-day that there are no houses being built round towns, but where there are factories there is no housing problem. This is a personal matter, but I may as well tell the Committee. There are two large factories in the Midlands, and there was a possibility of a breakdown of transport unless the people were in some way housed contiguous to the factories. I decided to do something about it, and I was really the first to build houses in this country after war was declared. We built houses, amounting to practically two townships, by putting them contiguous to large factories. When we built the houses we could have let them at an amenable rental, but when the rates were levied they made it impossible to let the houses at an economic rent unless there was a State subsidy—the old story over again. On top of that we had new charges. We built houses of three rooms with kitchen and bath, and I found—because I was supervising the accounts as well as organising the contractural work—that I could not keep my costs down less than £850 per house. I have been making inquiries about what these new agricultural houses are going to cost. I find that in one instance houses not as good as those I put up will cost £1,300. It will be an impossible proposition at that price. I would make a suggestion if there is a determined effort to be made in Scotland as well as in England in those areas where the emergency is present almost to the point of tragedy. In my constituency, in the Potteries, we have had the same trouble as in certain parts of Glasgow. We have had girls, directed from the Highlands of Scotland and from the South of England, packed into houses in the Pottery district——
  The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): The hon. Gentleman has been on very thin ice, and he cannot talk about housing in England.
  Mr. MacLaren: I am giving an experience similar to one that has already been referred to in the Debate, namely, the directing of people from outside to an already congested area.
  The Deputy-Chairman: That is almost committing a double sin, because the direction of people comes under the Ministry of Labour.
  Mr. MacLaren: As an old Member of this House, I think I know when I am keeping strictly to the Rules of Debate. I merely said that I am having the same experience in the Potteries as has been mentioned in regard to Glasgow, namely, the incoming of fresh people into an already congested area.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot bring what is happening in England under another Ministry into this Debate, which is entirely a Scottish matter.
  Mr. Stephen: If it were put the other way round, that the circumstances in Glasgow were the same as the circumstances in the Potteries, would not that be in Order?
  The Deputy-Chairman: I had better listen to it first.
  Mr. MacLaren: I will be content with what I have said. The similarity is there, the same difficulty is there. We are driving people into an already congested area, and the resulting tragedy makes it imperative that some form of accommodation shall be found for them expeditiously. We have set up a Minister of Town and Country Planning, and naturally he is apprehensive that not even temporary erections shall be so sited as to make it impossible to remove them for new planning in future. We passed a Bill giving full powers to that Ministry to withhold building, so that we shall have to circumvent in some way the new powers granted to the new Minister in order to get what I would call "accommodation houses" built in Scotland—and there is the same problem all over the place. I would suggest to the Secretary of State—he knows it, because more years ago than I would care to remember we used to stand in the streets and discuss these things——
  Mr. Gallacher: Did he do that too?
  Mr. MacLaren:Yes. I would ask the Secretary of State to see that rates shall not be levied upon these emergency houses. Will he have the courage to try that? Let him try it and see what will happen, because it would help to reduce the rents and the charges upon the users. With regard to the question of materials and men, there is an increased amount of building labour floating about the country, and in the next two or three months, with the calling-off of much building that had already been projected, there will be a greater number of bricklayers and builders' labourers to be found. As regards material, the question will arise of the substitution of precast concrete for wood. I do not think there is any problem there, but those are technical matters which I will not discuss now. I ask the Secretary of State to approach the Minister of Town and Country Planning, because there is no reason why the emergency houses should not fit in with some plans already in the hands of the Minister—in Scotland. My next point is that rates shall not be levied upon these emergency houses. My third point is that the Secretary of State should not be "fobbed off" with the suggestion that there is no labour available. I know there is plenty of labour. I know there is a question as regards the cost of precast concrete houses as compared with wood houses, and all I would say on that is that while we are told there is no wood it is very strange that I see wood piled in the most weird places.
  Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member says he knows that there is plenty of building-trade labour in Scotland. I would assure him that my right hon. Friend and I have explored every possible source from which to augment the supply of building-trade labour, and if he can put us on the track of where there are unknown reserves, we shall be greatly obliged.
  Mr. MacLaren: All right. But I shall have to watch the Chair. Some have come down from Scotland to England, and they can be re-directed to Scotland. I know they are looking for work now and there will be more of them now that certain works are being held up. There is no reason why they should not go home. I will do my best to tell the right hon. Gentleman where they are. I am
  666
  sorry to have spoken at such length, but let me repeat that I would beg Scottish Members to go into the past history of the housing fight in Scotland and the proposals advanced by responsible Members of this House to deal with them.
  Mr. Gallacher: Some of us have gone back into past history.
  Mr. MacLaren: I was not particularly referring to my hon. Friend but speaking generally to Scottish Members. It is not only to-day that I have in mind, because I have listened to other Scottish Debates, and with the exception of one or two Members of the Independent Labour Party the speeches have seemed entirely divorced from the historic background of the fight in Scotland. Therefore, I was incited to intervene, and I am sorry that I have run counter to the Chair once or twice. Notwithstanding that, what I have said here to-day I have said in all sincerity, because when Scotland comes to face post-war reconstruction I hope that much that was done in the past will be remembered and that Scotland will set an example of how to solve the problem of houses.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Westwood): This Debate has been one of the most interesting we have had on Scottish Estimates, confined though it has been to two subjects of Scottish administration, health and housing. The Debate has also proved that while it was open to hon. Members to debate the general aspects of health administration, there was a sincere desire to draw attention to what I believe is Scotland's greatest problem, which will have to be solved if we are to have a happy people living under peace conditions, and if we are to make really healthy conditions possible in Scotland. It may be impossible in the time at my disposal to deal with all the points that have been raised, but I make the same promise as I have made on previous occasions, that any points missed by me in this reply will be dealt with in communications to the hon. Members who have raised those points. I shall deal with as many points as possible, and take them in the order in which they have been raised. Before doing so let me make it clear that any constructive suggestion put forward today will receive very careful consideration, and not only the constructive sug-

  667
  gestions made to-day, because this is one of the greatest problems which is facing us. Speaking on behalf of the Secretary of State, myself and the Department of Health, I can assure hon. Members that in addition to the constructive suggestions made to-day we shall be pleased to receive any others they may have in mind and to give them careful consideration, so that collectively we may do our best to make Scotland a better place than it is.
  The first point was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) when he asked what was being done with a view to improving or reconditioning houses in Scotland. When the Housing Advisory Committee was set up it was divided into three sections, and it received from the Secretary of State three remits. So soon as those remits have been dealt with and the necessary recommendations made to the Secretary of State, there will be further remits, and one of them will be to consider how best—I do not like the word "reconditioning"—to modernise existing houses. There is a big difference between reconditioning and modernising, because you can recondition a house and still leave it without up-to-date sanitary conditions and below the up-to-date standards we desire to see.
  Mr. Sloan: There is no method of reconstructing houses without providing hygienic appliances.
  Mr. Westwood: All I can say is that we are proposing to give a remit to the Housing Advisory Committee to consider how it would be possible to secure the modernising and reconstruction of existing well-built houses. There may be many methods to consider with a view to making that practicable and possible so that it will not merely be those who go into the new houses who will benefit but also that part of the decent, hardworking population that if we did not reconstruct would have to live and die without the standard of housing which will be provided in the new houses. I hope that meets the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member.
  Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: And the report?
  Mr. Westwood: The question of publishing the report will be a matter for
  668
  my right hon. Friend to consider as and when recommendations are made by the Advisory Committee. Of course, the Committee itself will have no power other than to advise the Secretary of State on various remits. It will be a matter for my right hon. Friend to consider as to how he will make those recommendations known to the House.
  A suggestion was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) that housing work should be given to master contractors with leave to sub-contract. That also is a matter which is receiving consideration at the present time. There is a difference between the contracting system in most areas of Scotland and the system in England. In England a master builder is given the job of building houses, whereas in Scotland separate contracts are given to individual contractors dealing with brickwork, joinery, plastering and slating, plumbing and so on. That matter is being considered by a Committee. Consideration is being given not merely to methods of contracting for work but also to the question of the use of alternative materials. On behalf of the Secretary of State, I say that we are prepared to use any and every material that can be proved to be of real value in trying to solve this problem. We are prepared to use any and all methods, and we are prepared to use any and all kinds of material that will stand the test to enable us to solve this problem. The hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) referred to the stopping of speculation in land. The Uthwatt Report has been considered by the Government, and they have already come to one decision, that is, that land required for public purposes should be acquired at a price not exceeding the value in March, 1939.
  Mr. MacLaren: There is no such value.
  Mr. Westwood: I have told my hon. Friend the decision of the Government. They have accepted this principle, and legislation will be introduced in due course. This will at least mean that speculators will be well advised to keep off buying land for speculative purposes.
  Mr. McKinlay: That is no protection against the speculative builder.
  Mr. Westwood: We have allocated 1,000 houses to Scotland—200 to rural areas and 800 to urban areas. All along we have

  669
  said that we do not claim that that is a solution of the Scottish housing problem. When England received 3,000 houses for the purpose of dealing, not with its housing problem, because that was not the essential purpose of giving the 3,000 houses, but with the problem of food production and of building houses in areas in which, I understand, there were very few houses and in which huge tracts of land formerly under grass were now being brought under the plough, we put in our claim for 1000 houses, and we received the right to go on and build them. We have already received estimates for 200 in Glasgow and for one of the counties. I can assure the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) that the figure is not anything like £1,300 for these houses in Scotland.
  Mr. Watson: Is that for timber houses?
  Mr. Westwood: No, they are cottages in the county areas, of the single-storey or two-storey type. They are also of a tenement or flatted type for Glasgow, where they are of four or five apartments, and of the four-apartment type for the rural areas.
  Mr. Sloan: What are they going to cost?
  Mr. Westwood: I cannot say that at the moment, because I do not think it would be wise to do so. I can give hon. Members the assurance that the price is under £1,000 for the houses for which we have accepted tenders. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan), who has for so long been connected with housing administration, will know that it would not be in the public interest to give the figure. To the hon. Member who wanted to know what was to be done if local authorities had no land for further houses, the answer is that they can build outside their boundaries, or they can apply for an extension of their boundaries. The problem of housing distribution is being considered at the present time. It has also to be considered in relation to the length of life of mining in particular areas. Another point raised related to a town council who had made application to be heard in connection with their housing problem. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfermline Burghs (Mr. Watson) that the Secretary of State and I have seldom if ever turned down such an application to be heard. I shall notify the town council concerned
  670
  in the very near future, so that a mutually suitable date can be arranged, and I shall be only too pleased to meet that deputation.
  A further question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline was in connection with Glenlomond Sanatorium. For the last 18 months, the Department have helped the sanatorium by supplying two trained nurses and 22 nursing auxiliaries. The shortage at the present time is two trained nurses and six other personnel. There is no question in our mind of the sanatorium being closed, but there are 30 empty beds. So far as the Department of Health are concerned, we expect, on information we have, the possibility of new patients being sent along this week.
  Mr. Watson: I did not say that there was any question of closing the sanatorium, but what the Joint Sanatorium Board recommended was that part should be closed, due to the fact that they have not the nurses to keep the whole institution going.
  Mr. Westwood: I am coming to that. One great problem we have to face is the shortage of nurses, but the Department are still trying to get nurses for the sanatorium. The general question of the supply of nurses is for the Ministry of Labour, who are now preparing their machinery in consultation with the Department to enable us to get the maximum number of nurses who may have retired from the profession.
  Mr. Buchanan: Would my right hon. Friend forgive me? I think everyone who heard the hon. Member for Dunfermline thought that he had made out a reasonable case in this matter. Is he aware that there are a fair number of nurses, tuberculosis nurses among others, who are leaving Scotland to go to England? If they do that, it is not because they like England better than Scotland. Will he look into the matter to see whether English standards are more attractive than Scottish standards?
  Mr. Westwood: The fact is that we are actually 500 nurses short. Quite recently we had a report from the Taylor Committee in connection with salaries for nurses, which practically brought the standard of salaries for Scottish nurses up to that being paid——
  Mr. Buchanan: Salaries are not the only thing.
  Mr. Westwood: That is perfectly true. There were also conditions of employment. What we have done up to the present does not mean the end of what we are going to do in an endeavour to try and get that provision which is absolutely necessary if we are to tackle either the problem of tuberculosis or the general health problems which are being thrown up at the present time.
  Mr. McKie: I hope that nothing will deter the Scottish Office from dealing with this problem of tuberculosis in the most drastic way, in view of the powers we have granted under the Nurses Bill.
  Mr. Westwood: All I can say is that we are going to do everything we can to try to combat something which, I think, everyone is desirous of seeing combated so far as Scotland is concerned. I am pointing out some of the problems we are up against. When we realise what we are up against, difficulties of nursing staff and so on, it makes it much easier to face up to the problem and try to get a solution. The hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine, Western (Lieut.-Colonel Thornton-Kemsley) pressed for temporary houses after the war and suggested the use of Army huts. Again, all I can say is that all forms of temporary construction will be considered. None is ruled out. I have already stated that the problem is so great, and the Burt Committee, which is a United Kingdom Committee, is considering suggestions which have been put up by the City of Glasgow in connection with certain forms of construction, and suggestions which have been put up by the County of Ayr, by its leading architect. They are considering those proposals so far as a new method of construction is concerned. I would not call them prefabricated houses, but it is claimed that the building of these houses would be far more speedy than by the ordinary material used. Then we have the Gyproc experimental scheme, of which we have the example of two houses built by the Kilmarnock Town Council, which is already being considered by the Burt Committee, and any other proposals which anyone desires to put forward which deal with alternative materials and alternative methods of construction will receive the
  672
  fullest consideration, because of the determination of everyone dealing with this particular problem: to use every possible means of solving it, even to the extent of having temporary buildings.
  The problem is great, and the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) knows that we are all desperately anxious to do whatever is possible to deal with the type of case he brought before the Committee to-day. Everyone has the same desire, and if it were possible to solve these problems immediately, there is not a Member of the Committee who would not willingly use any power he had. When a man has given his services and given his limbs—aye, and given his life—he or his dependants are entitled to decent shelter.
  Mr. Gallacher: But will they get it?
  Mr. Westwood: All I am saying is that we have done what is possible. We have combed all the places we know of for labour, and I am pleased to hear what was said by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren). We have even sought what help we could from the National Fire Service. On the face of it, there seems to be a large number of building workers engaged in the National Fire Service, but the distribution of the workers is such that we cannot get the full value out of those people. For instance, there are 832 building trade workers in the Fire Service, but over 200 are painters, whose services are least required at the present stage in connection with the housing problem.
  Mr. Gallagher: Get back to the soldier who is coming home.
  Mr. Westwood: I want to make it clear that all forms of temporary labour will be considered in dealing with this problem. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire, dealing particularly with health problems, drew attention to——
  Mr. Kirkwood: Is the hon. Member not going to say anything about the fact which has been put before him that, although thousands of houses have been built during the war to accommodate workers at new work, nothing is being done to provide houses for my folk in Clydebank, who are doing work as essential as the new work?
  Mr. Westwood: I would like to get the opportunity of dealing with the problem

  673
  in my own way in the limited time at my disposal. I am going to give some figures of what has been done in Clydebank. Two hundred out of the 800 houses which were made available recently were allocated to Clydebank. We are prepared to do all we can, and any constructive proposals which have been made to-day, or which are passed on to us in future, will receive immediate attention. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire referred to the figures for maternal mortality. Legislation to improve the position in respect of the maternity services was passed only in 1937. Schemes are now in operation throughout the greater part of Scotland, but it is too early for them to have had any appreciable effect. The Secretary of State pointed out in his statement that the rate for 1942 was 14 per 1,000 less than the rate for 1941.
  Mr. Sloan: Is the right hon. Gentleman dealing now with infantile mortality or with maternal mortality?
  Mr. Westwood: I am sorry; those figures relate to infantile mortality. The Scientific Advisory Committee of the Department of Health have been inquiring into the whole problem of infantile mortality in Scotland, and their report is expected shortly. The figure for 1942, however, was almost the same as the record low level of 1939, and, incidentally, the rate for the first quarter of 1943 is the lowest for the first quarter of any year.
  If there are any other points that I have missed—and I have only a very short time now—I shall endeavour to see that each Member gets a letter dealing with the point he has raised. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) has raised a question about the Ministry of Works, which he said was more interested in the distribution of direct labour than producing houses, and wanted to know whether the Secretary of State was aware of any organisation concerned with the cornering of the construction of houses in Scotland, We shall be glad to act on any information which the bon. Member may have if he gives the hint.
  Mr. McKinlay: Even if it involves the Minister of Works? I do not want to cause a row in the family.
  Mr. Westwood: If there is any suggestion thrown out as to the possibility of
  674
  anyone seeking to corner the construction of housing in Scotland, if we get the information, we shall certainly give attention to it at once, and that rules out none. I think that the hon. Member also suggested that the first responsibility we have is to provide the houses and that we should not worry about the fitments and the lay-out. I can assure the hon. Member that the sub-committees of the Housing Advisory Committee, two of them at least, will be able to make reports in the very near future dealing with the design and lay-out of housing.
  Mr. Buchanan: Will those reports be made available to Members?
  Mr. Westwood: I have already pointed out that when the reports are made to the Secretary of State for Scotland, it will be for him to consider the ways and means of how the advice in those reports shall be made available, if considered advisable, to Members of the House. The first two will deal with design and lay-out of houses for our people which will have to be occupied in the year 2,000.
  Mr. McKinlay: It will be 2,000 years before they get them.
  Mr. Westwood: I am not afraid of that. We are laying plans for building 50,000 houses per year for the first ten years after the war, and it will be open to every local authority and everyone interested in solving this problem to help the central body to make that target possible and if possible surpass it. But it will require the whole-hearted co-operation of all those who are interested in housing if that target is to be reached. There will have to be no squabbling among local authorities. They Will have to give us all the help and advice possible. There will require to be control of labour and material, otherwise we shall be placed in the same position in which we were placed under the Addison scheme, when costs rose in such a way that they killed the possibility of obtaining houses at that time.
  Mr. Gallacher: The control of labour and material; what about the control of land?
  Mr. Westwood: I have only five minutes left. There is only one party who claims to be able to do that and I am afraid I do not belong to that party,

  675
  and consequently I see no hope of being able to take over the control of land in four or five minutes.
  Mr. Gallacher: What about the Labour Party?
  Mr. Westwood: The Labour Party has not a majority in this House. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) drew attention to the shortage of labour and material, and, as I have already pointed out, wherever we are informed that there is a surplus of labour we shall certainly do our best to make full use of that surplus, if it can be made available. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs, I want to pay a tribute to the workers on the Clyde and Dumbarton. They went through a most harrowing time; they have had great difficulties to put up with, but they have responded most patriotically to the appeals made to them to try and give of their best and to build the ships required. Without the whole-hearted support, energy, enthusiasm and labour of the working class, not only on Clydebank but in the rest of Scotland, it would have been absolutely impossible for us to have reached the position we have reached today on the road to victory.
  I was interested in the resolution which was handed across the Floor of the House, a resolution which, as my hon. Friend knows, has come from many quarters in Clydebank. Bearing in mind that these people have been facing up to great difficulties, including the shortage of houses, which we have tried to meet as far as possible, what does the resolution say? It says:
  "Believing that the housing of bombed out people is an essential part of the war effort, affecting not only the problem of production but the morale of the citizens, we call upon the Government to declare Clydebank an emergency area and to utilise scientifically all the resources at its command in material and labour, so far as present conditions permit, in a great national effort to rehouse homeless people."
  676
  It is quite apparent that those who framed that Resolution were facing up to realities. They say, "so far as present conditions permit." They are facing up to the difficulty of present conditions. So far as is possible at the present time we are doing all we can.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I have told them that, but they do not believe it.
  Mr. Westwood: I want to point out that the Department have maintained close contact with the Council and their officials in order to expedite the completion of the 354 houses which the Council had under construction in March, 1941. Since then special facilities for the supply of labour and materials have been placed at the Council's disposal and 250 houses have been completed, leaving 104 still to be finished, which is expected will be completed this summer. Added to that—and I have not time to give the full story—are the 200 houses we have just given them. An outstanding feature of this Debate has been the fact that no one has attempted to defend the impossible conditions applicable to housing in Scotland but that everyone, Irrespective of party and whether in or outside the Government, is earnestly desirous of seeking to use to the best advantage all the means at our disposal during the war of trying to improve the housing position in Scotland.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again"—[Mr. J. P. L. Thomas]—put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after the hour appointed for the Adjournment of the House; Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

FUEL AND POWER
  Government Departments (Economy Devices)
  Government Departments (Economy Devices)
  Coal Stocks, Leven
  Coal Stocks, Leven
  Domestic Coal Stocks
  Domestic Coal Stocks
  Coal (Output and Employment Statistics)
  Coal (Output and Employment Statistics)
  Coal Supplies, Northern Ireland (Slack)
  Coal Supplies, Northern Ireland (Slack)
  Golf Courses, Mowing (Petrol Allowance)
  Golf Courses, Mowing (Petrol Allowance)
  Coal Industry (Stoppages)
  Coal Industry (Stoppages)
  POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION, WALES
  POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION, WALES
  COAL-MINERS (PNEUMOCONIOSIS)
  COAL-MINERS (PNEUMOCONIOSIS)
  FIRE GUARD DUTIES
  FIRE GUARD DUTIES
AGRICULTURE
  Reclaimed Land, Cambridgeshire (Release)
  Reclaimed Land, Cambridgeshire (Release)
  Compulsorily-Acquired Land (Retention Period)
  Compulsorily-Acquired Land (Retention Period)
  Waste. Land, Urban Areas
  Waste. Land, Urban Areas
  RUBBER ECONOMY (PUBLICITY)
  RUBBER ECONOMY (PUBLICITY)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Orders and Regulations
  Orders and Regulations
  Location of Industry (County Durham)
  Location of Industry (County Durham)
  Clothing (Purchase Tax)
  Clothing (Purchase Tax)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Guaranteed Loans (Outstanding Balances)
  Guaranteed Loans (Outstanding Balances)
  China and Russia (Aid Funds)
  China and Russia (Aid Funds)
  X-RAY TUBES (SUPPLY)
  X-RAY TUBES (SUPPLY)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PAPER)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (PAPER)
  RAILINGS REMOVAL (COST)
  RAILINGS REMOVAL (COST)
  REQUISITIONED PREMISES
  REQUISITIONED PREMISES
  SCHOOL ATTENDANCE, COUNTY DURHAM
  SCHOOL ATTENDANCE, COUNTY DURHAM
NATIONAL WAR EFFORT
  Golf-Club Employees (Transference)
  Golf-Club Employees (Transference)
  Interrupted Apprenticeships (Completion)
  Interrupted Apprenticeships (Completion)
  Disabled Persons (Rehabilitation)
  Disabled Persons (Rehabilitation)
  POST-WAR RELIEF WORK (TRAINING)
  POST-WAR RELIEF WORK (TRAINING)
  VICTORIA CROSS (AWARDS)
  VICTORIA CROSS (AWARDS)
BRITISH ARMY
  Aliens (Enlistment)
  Aliens (Enlistment)
  Accident, Lowick Compensation)
  Accident, Lowick Compensation)
  Ration Scales
  Ration Scales
  Proficiency Pay
  Proficiency Pay
  Private Mourning
  Private Mourning
  Home Guard (Pension Rates)
  Home Guard (Pension Rates)
  Welsh Units
  Welsh Units
  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR
  BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR
  SOAP INDUSTRY (NUCLEUS FACTORIES)
  SOAP INDUSTRY (NUCLEUS FACTORIES)
  RATION BOOKS AND IDENTIFICATION CARDS (DISTRIBUTION)
  RATION BOOKS AND IDENTIFICATION CARDS (DISTRIBUTION)
  AIR MAIL (IRAQ AND MIDDLE EAST)
  AIR MAIL (IRAQ AND MIDDLE EAST)
  FRUIT (DISTRIBUTION)
  FRUIT (DISTRIBUTION)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (ACCIDENT, PERSHORE)
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (ACCIDENT, PERSHORE)
  HOUSING (COSTS)
  HOUSING (COSTS)
  DIPHTHERIA, IMMUNISATION
  DIPHTHERIA, IMMUNISATION
Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

OPERATIONS IN AFRICA: MESSAGE FROM GENERAL EISENHOWER.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I have to inform the House, with reference to the Resolution which this House adopted on May 18, expressing its high appreciation of the services of all ranks of His Majesty's Forces and of the Forces of the Allies operating in Africa, that I have received the following message from General Eisenhower, from the Allied Headquarters in North Africa, addressed to the Lord Chancellor:
"I have received with pride the text of the Motion passed by the House of Lords on May 18. I ask that you will convey to the members of the House of Lords the thanks of all ranks of the Allied Forces under my command for this generous appreciation of their services. Strengthened by your encouraging message, we look forward with increasing confidence to a future of still greater effort and achievement, until the complete and final destruction of the Axis Forces throughout the world has been attained.
(Signed) Eisenhower."
Ordered, That the said Message be entered on the Journals of the House.

THE PRIME MINISTER.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CRANBORNE): My Lords, it has, as your Lordships know, been the custom during these war years that, when a statement is made in another place by the Prime Minister which touches on the conduct of the war, a similar statement is made by the Leader of your Lordships' House. In the normal course of events such an opportunity would have occurred to-day, for, as your Lordships well know, my right honourable friend has, in another place, given an account of his recent journey to the United States and to North Africa, and your Lordships might, I think, naturally have expected to have a similar statement here. However, it seemed to me—and I hope that your Lordships will agree—that such a course would be in-
888
appropriate on this occasion. The story which the Prime Minister has had to tell has been an extremely personal one. His purpose has been to describe the important conferences in which he has taken part in the. United States, so far as it is possible to say what transpired at them, and to draw deductions from them, so far as it is possible to do that in public, and also to tell of his personal experience in North Africa and of the conclusions he reached from what he saw there. For me merely to recapitulate that at second hand, and in far less majestic language, would be, I think, slightly absurd; and I therefore decided—and I hope that your Lordships will approve—not to follow the usual practice to-day. I hope, therefore, that we may agree to postpone a general statement on the war position until an appropriate though, I hope, an early moment.
There is, however, one thing which I feel certain that the House will wish me to do, and that is to express on your Lordships' behalf our great joy at seeing the Prime Minister back safely in this country, and also to express to him our heartfelt gratitude for his further strenuous and successful efforts on our behalf. In past times a Prime Minister used to be rather an austere, elderly person, who remained immovable in the seat of government and directed our affairs from the centre. Now he needs new and very different qualities. In addition to his ordinary strenuous duties, he is expected to fly over continents and oceans to negotiate with the rulers of our Allies in every part of the world. There really are no limits to the powers of endurance which are expected of a Prime Minister in these days, and I think it is our supreme good fortune that at this, the greatest crisis in our history, we should have found for this arduous task a man equipped with special qualities of courage, of drive and of initiative, and of an almost superhuman buoyancy of temperament which has surmounted all difficulties and all dangers, and has lifted the spirit of the British people up to his own lofty and heroic level. Our debt and the world's debt to the Prime Minister grows month by month and day by day, and I think that it is fitting that I should take this opportunity of expressing to him on your Lordships' behalf our undying gratitude. For all he has done and all he is doing, we thank him from the bottom of our hearts.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I should like to associate myself without reservation with the statement made by the noble Viscount opposite, and to concur in his conclusion that in the circumstances it would not be appropriate to recapitulate in this House the general statement, and that it would be better to postpone any discussion on it to a more convenient occasion. At the same time, I am sure that we all gladly associate ourselves with the noble Viscount in expressing our sincere relief at the safe return to this country of the Prime Minister. His ardent character must always be torn, I think, between the difficulties inherent in geography and his desire to be at the centre of the drive wherever it may be. I do not think the noble Viscount hinted a bit too strongly what we in this country have owed to the Prime Minister in the dark and dangerous days through which we have passed, and what the world owes to him for the example with which he Inspired us, for the ready adaptation of cur policy and methods to the changing circumstances of the war, and, I believe, for the enlistment, with such splendid friendliness and heartiness, of such glorious allies as we now have. We must in that regard owe a great deal to what the Prime Minister, by his, personal contacts and personal magnetism, has achieved for us. While he must, I think, be a source of anxiety to his friends—and he has many friends outside the Government—I am quite sure that in every habitation, even the smallest, in the land his journey aroused hope and expectation, and there was immense relief on his safe return.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Crewe, and on behalf of noble Lords sitting on these Benches, I would say that I have no doubt the House would not for a moment demur to the course that has been taken by its Leader the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. At, the same time, of course, it will be understood that this is an exceptional case of a personal statement by the Prime Minister and that the House will not forgo its usual privilege of having simultaneous communication of anything in the nature of art official statement by the Government. It was only a few weeks ago that we expressed our rejoicing in this House at the great victory that had been achieved in
890
Tunisia, and also expressed to the Prime Minister our thanks for all that he had achieved by his own personal intervention and guidance in the direction of the war. Since then he has flown about the world, over continent after continent, an Ariel among statesmen. We hope that now he will sit still for a while, refrain from Australia, forgo Chungking, and relieve the anxieties of an admiring and grateful nation.

TELEGRAPH BILL.
Brought from the Commons; and read 1.

COAL BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The measure, as its title indicates, is designed to amend certain sections of the Coal Act, 1938, and I think it will prove to be in no way a contentious measure. The House will probably recall that under that principal Act all coal, known or unknown, worked or unworked, was transferred to the Commission on the 1st July, 1942. Thus the Coal Commission, as owners of this valuable mineral, have had nearly a full year's working experience of the Act, and it has been found that in certain cases the principal Act is in need of slight alteration and amendment.
There are only three clauses in this Bill to which I need ask your Lordships to refer. The first is Clause 3. Under Section 13 of the principal Act any colliery freeholder who had acquired his property before the Second Reading of that Act was entitled to the grant of a lease on terms which placed him financially in exactly the same position as when he was a freeholder. These colliery freeholders were to receive the compensation due to them, but it was to be returned, together with the value of relief from mineral rights duty and other levies, in the form of rent payable over the period in which it was estimated that the coal would be worked out. The House will probably observe that in point of fact it is quite impossible to calculate exactly when the coal will be

891
worked out. I am advised that the usual mineral lease provides for the payment of rent per annum calculated on the yearly output. It is not possible either to state precisely beforehand the period it will take to work the coal out or to estimate the rate of output per annum. If the intention of Section 13 of the principal Act is to be preserved, then it is necessary to provide that the colliery freeholder should refund to the Coal Commission the compensation which he receives as a capital sum and take a lease from the Commission at a peppercorn rent, and have attached to it the same liabilities as he had as a freeholder before the passing of the principal Act. That is what this Clause 3 effects.
I now would ask your Lordships to turn for one moment to Clause 6 of the Bill. Here again I must refer to the principal Act. Under Section 22 of that Act we repealed that part of the working facilities legislation which enables persons to apply to the Railway and Canal Commission for rights to work coal. There could be no dispute about that, as all coal was vested in the Coal Commission, but in point of fact the repeal went too far. Let me quote an instance to show in which case it went too far. The coal leased to one concern would, in the national interest, be better worked by a neighbouring concern, but as the Coal Commission have no power to transfer retained interests, the better working of the nation's coal could not in fact be achieved. This clause therefore provides that if the applicant and the Coal Commission desire the transfer to be made, application can then be made to the Railway and Canal Commission. On the other hand, subsection (3) of Clause 6 deals with another matter in which the principal Act did not go far enough. The Railway and Canal Commission still have powers to modify onerous conditions or restrictions affecting the working of coal, and no reasonable objection could be taken to this where the person with power to modify those conditions is a third party, but where that person happens to be the Coal Commission it is obviously quite inconsistent that application should be made to the Railway and Canal Commission for the revision of conditions which have been imposed by the Coal Commission.
The last parts of the Bill to which I need draw the attention of the House are Clause 10 and the Second Schedule. It
892
may be recalled that under the principal Act the Commission acquired all those rights which a coal owner could sell to a willing purchaser in virtue of his interest in the coal, but not in virtue of any interest he might have in the land. Coal mining leases frequently require the lessee to give the lessor notice when he is approaching coal underlying surface buildings, and this enables the lessor to prohibit or authorize the working of such coal. Let me give your Lordships another example of the kind of case with which this clause deals. Where the owner of the fee simple in the coal and the owner of the fee simple in the land were formerly one and the same person, that owner, in letting a given area of coal to the lessee, has attached to the lease a condition that the lessee may not work coal supporting buildings without first obtaining the lessor's consent; but under the Act it is doubtful in certain circumstances in whom is now vested the right to give or withhold that consent. Is it the Coal Commission as owner of the coal, or is it the former owner as the owner of the surface? Obviously a doubt exists, and this doubt must, and should, be cleared up. Accordingly this clause and the Second Schedule provide that the right to give or withhold consent has passed to the Coal Commission as owner of the coal, but the right to let down the surface, which is vested in the Commission along with the coal, shall carry a condition to give compensation for any damage that may be done to supporting buildings. That is the small Bill that I present to the House. It will, I am sure, in no way prove to be a contentious measure, and I now submit it to your Lordships for Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Bill read 2, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POPULATION PROBLEMS.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR rose to call attention to the threatened decrease in population in this country, and to ask His Majesty's Government what consideration they are giving to the problem; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is never very wise to raise in your Lordships' House a subject

893
about which one knows only a little. My excuse for breaking that rule to-day is that there are too many of us who know too little about this subject of population. I cannot see any better way of opening up a discussion of this vital subject than by a debate in your Lordships' House. I do not speak in any way as an expert in terms of knowledge of the facts, and certainly not in terms of remedies, but simply as a layman who feels that here we are at the present moment planning our future policy for education, housing, health, the use of our land in town and country, agriculture, industry, and all our Imperial policies and defence, yet we are taking quite extraordinarily little account of what must, in fact, be the very basis of the consideration we are giving to these problems—that is, the numbers and, equally important, the age composition of our future population by which must be judged our capacity to earn the wealth that will be necessary to pay for all we are intending to do, the population that will be needed for the peopling of the Empire and, if need be, for working and fighting, as to-day, for our very existence.
What is the position? Very briefly and simply it is this, that every 100 women of child-bearing age were in 1939 replacing themselves to the extent of 75 women. Taking that as a basis of calculation, it means that these 75 women will in turn replace themselves to the extent of 57 women. That compares with a rate in 1880 of 155, and in 1911 of 115. Assuming that these tendencies continue it means that by about 1980 our population will be down to 34,000,000 compared with the present 45,000,000. I use the word "assuming" rightly, because it is no good attempting to be a prophet on a subject like this. It may well be that some quite unforeseen happening will occur to alter this tendency and falsify all our gloomy prognostications, but he would be a bold man who would say that we must base our assumptions on a tremendous reversal of what has been, in fact, a very prolonged trend. The gravity of these figures is masked at the present time partly because it takes almost a generation for figures like these to work out in their effect over the whole population. Also there has been a fairly considerable decrease—most welcome—in mortality; but this decrease is among the aged as well as the young, and to that
894
extent has no effect on future population figures. The gravity of the position has also to some extent been masked by the fact that the tendency, just before the war, was for migration to be towards this country rather than away from it.
That really makes the position graver because it means, surely, that these things that are happening to-day are going to settle our future twenty or thirty years ahead. Unless we face up to the problem here and now, it may well be that in twenty years' time we are going to wake up and realize we are exactly twenty years too late. I apologize to your Lordships for giving so many figures, but one cannot illustrate this matter without figures. They do not, however, tell the whole story. Not only are we going to have a much smaller population in 1980, but our whole age composition is going to be vastly different. To the extent of about one-quarter, we are going to be a nation of old age pensioners. That is quite politically true. Again, in 1880, the number of people over 65 represented 7½ per cent. of the whole. In 1930 that 7½ per cent. had gone up to 11½ per cent., and in 1980 the figure will be 22½ per cent., with a correspondingly fewer number of people of working age to support all these old age pensioners. I hope I shall not be accused of taking an unduly cynical view of the politics of this country if I suggest that, with the ever-growing voting power of the pensioner, the tendency will be for pensions to go up in value rather than to go down. These figures, I hope your Lordships will agree, are extremely grave. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that there really is no other single political or economic problem that compares with this in fundamental importance.
It may be that we have got to accept the inevitable, the unalterable, or it may be that we shall find there are in fact steps that can be taken either to modify these developments or actually to reverse them, but it is absolutely clear that we cannot as a nation disregard them. There is only, so far as I can see, one official note that has been taken of the position. That is in a report published last year, called "The Current Trend of Population in Great Britain" published on behalf of the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is a combined report by their two Registrar-Generals.

895
That Report, if I may say so, is completely misleading and therefore extremely dangerous. I cannot see the reason or excuse for a Report of this character unless it is just an attempt to allay public concern on a problem that is in fact dangerous to the extent that the public do not recognize it. If your Lordships look at this Report you will see that the figures do not go beyond 1971. It is an extraordinary coincidence that it is just after 1971 that the figures really become disturbing. If your Lordships can get hold of a copy of this Report and will look at page 4 you will find calculations showing that the situation will be quite all right on the assumption that the birth-rate continues at 700,000 a year, but in an aside, having given that calculation, the Report notices incidentally that we are in fact proceeding at a rate of 25 per cent. below that level.
I refer to the Report because it does seem to me extraordinarily disturbing that officialdom should go out of its way to attempt to destroy the public concern which in fact there ought to be. But there is no reason why we in this House should follow that course. One has to recognize that there are a great number of people who, with some reason, disagree with myself on this matter. It can very well be argued, as they would say, that a population of 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 less than we have in this country at the present time would not really seriously matter. But that is quite beside the point. We are not discussing the question of a population of 5,000,000 less, we are discussing a problem that is to give us a steadily decreasing population logically proceeding almost to extinction over a very prolonged period, and not only a steadily decreasing population but a steady increase of old persons at the expense of the young members of the nation. Why is this thing happening? I think we have got to make some attempt to answer that question before we jump to quick or easy remedies. A great deal more study of the problem is needed before anybody who is wise is going to attempt any final explanation.
We have to ask ourselves, to begin with, is it a question of small families, or is it also a question of the number of women who in fact are not married? I do not know. I notice some figures, to give two examples, showing that in Bul-
896
garia 1·3 per cent of women do not marry, whereas in this country the number is 17 per cent. Is that an important factor? Is it due to economic causes? Is it due to a national loss of fertility? Is it because we have become pleasure-loving? Is it because of lack of religion? Is it that our education gives a wrong objective, particularly to girls, putting before them the aim and object of earning their own living in a shop or as a typist rather than looking for a home? Is it a lack of confidence in the material state of the world following on the last great war, which was succeeded by twenty years or more of industrial depression and unemployment? Or is it something more elusive? Is it something that really calls into question the whole quality of our civilization? The subject was brought out the other day by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, in a rather different context. Is it something that calls into question the whole content of our education, the whole objective of our national health system, which aims at curing disease rather than at what the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, described as positive health? Is it the effect that living in slums for generations will have on a population, the deadening effect not only of unemployment but of constantly repetitive work upon those engaged in mass production processes?
Arising out of all this, my Lords, there is a very important question, and that is how much will what we call progress, greatly developed education, improvement of the health services, feeding, nutrition, and a gradual rising of the standard of living affect the position? What effect is all that going to have? Is it going to increase this tendency or decrease it? We have to face the fact that it is not always those families of the highest standard of living, the most healthy and the most prosperous families, who necessarily increase at the most rapid rate. There seems to be complete uncertainty in the answer we have to give to most of these questions, and I feel that it would be folly to attempt an answer to them to-day. I think he would be a bold man who attempted a very definite or positive answer on present evidence. Probably, as so often is the case in life, this happening is due to a great variety of causes and I doubt myself whether there is any one single answer or one single remedy.
There are two remedies that are frequently put forward, both to my mind extremely sound in themselves and on their own merits, but quite inadequate, I believe, as a solution to the particular problem. The first is a continued attack on the problem of mortality, particularly amongst the young. Obviously that is something we want to go on with whatever its effect on population. But we must face this, that if not a single girl or woman were to die under the age of fifty—I take that as an approximate child-bearing age—it would only take our rate of production up from 75 per cent. to just under 90. Therefore I say a mere attack on the problem of mortality is inadequate. Then there is the proposal of family allowances. I have never been able to persuade myself that this problem is one that can be adequate on a purely economic basis. We do know, of course, that the child has become a much greater burden than it was in the old days when, to take an extreme case, families put their children into the mines or mills, sometimes even as early as five years of age, in order to add to the family income. To-day children are not allowed by law to go to work until at least fourteen.
But many of us would take a great deal of convincing that this is a purely economic problem. We know that never has mortality been lower than to-day and never has the standard of living been higher, but for all that most of us would press the Government to continue that policy of family allowances and would stress particularly the desirability of paying little or nothing for the first or second child in order that it may be possible to be more generous for the third and later children. Probably the middle classes are most hit on the economic side from the point of view of bringing up children. No system of family allowances is going to be of serious assistance to the middle classes. Therefore to family allowances I think we must add the need for making Income Tax deductions for children far less negligible than they are at present. The improvement of our public system of education, to make it easier for them to make use of that system, would also undoubtedly be of great assistance.
I am afraid, as I said at the beginning, that my remarks have not been very conclusive, because, primarily, this is a subject which we have got to raise first in order to get further information. But, to
898
sum up, I would say, first, that the subject presents us with a problem that is serious and pressing and that the only report about it which has hitherto been issued by any Government Department is misleading and, as I said, therefore dangerous. Secondly, there are two immediate steps that can be taken: the continuing attack on the problem of mortality and the granting of family allowances, plus considerable and generous Income Tax deductions in respect of children. Both these proposed remedies, we have to admit, though desirable are inadequate. Thirdly, and most important, there must be further immediate inquiry into the facts and causes and the effects of declining population. I will not attempt to dogmatize now as to whether that inquiry should take the form of a Royal Commission—although I am convinced the subject is worthy of such consideration—or the rather more permanent ad hoc body suggested the other day by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, for advising the Government on policy and the wider aspects of public health. But there must be inquiry and it must be immediate. Lastly, whilst all our efforts must be directed to correcting this tendency that we are discussing to-day we should always bear in mind that we have got to have a second line of defence. All the plans we are making to-day for the future should take into account the fact that we may either fail completely in our efforts or achieve only partial success. Unless we take that into consideration there is grave danger that the plans we are laying to-day with so much hope may be based on quite false and non-existent premises. I beg to move.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, with much that the noble Earl has said I mostly warmly agree. There is very little indeed, if anything, from which I differ. In nothing am I more cordially in agreement with him than that this subject is one to which even the uninstructed layman may make a contribution by throwing ideas into the common pool, though he be himself no expert. I have no pretensions to be an expert, I approach the subject from the standpoint of an ordinary citizen concerned with a problem of great moment. It is indeed, as the noble Earl has said, perhaps the most important single economic problem with which our nation has to deal. In the last century the

899
British people expanded both in numbers and in space. That is why the last century is known as Britain's century. If the noble Earl's prognostication is correct, and I believe it is, the grim question which we have to ask ourselves is: Has the tide turned? That is the main question, but there are subsidiary questions which have a very real importance. We have to ask ourselves these questions: Will there be sufficient young men and women in the next generation to maintain the greatness of Britain? Will there be enough of them to defend that greatness in the next generation if, which God fore-fend, the need should arise?
For myself, I say frankly that looking into the future I find the prospects of an ageing and declining population most frightening. There are some—the noble Earl indicated it—who do not take that view, who ask, why is the prospect frightening? Was there not, they say, mass unemployment before the war? If the population goes down will there not be fewer people to share the nation's goods and services? To those who ask those questions the prospects are indeed attractive, but the attractions are meretricious, the argument is fallacious. It is true that there will be fewer to work, and there will be fewer to share, but the stock of goods and services to be shared will be smaller also. The plain fact of the matter is, as the noble Earl said, that the nation is not reproducing its numbers, though the situation is, to an extent, veiled at the moment, obscured by the fact that the old are living longer.
The noble Earl gave your Lordships a few figures. Mine are a little different but they have the same general trend. It is worth the notice of your Lordships that in 1901 the proportion of the population under fifteen was one-third; to-day it is one-fifth, and in 1971, if present trends continue, it will be one-sixth. In 1901 the proportion of old people—that is, for this purpose, men over 65 and women over 60—was one-sixteenth; to-day it is one-eighth, and in 1971, under present trends, it will become one-fifth. Those are not precisely the same figures as the noble Earl gave, but it is the same argument based on the same trend. This is the outcome that has to be faced in respect of these figures and I have put it in concrete terms. There will
900
be 9,500,000 old people to be supported by 29,000,000 only of men and women of working age. Furthermore, in 1971 there will only be 7,500,000 children coming along as compared with 12,000,000 in 1901. And the decline in both the total population and, what is vitally important, the proportion of the population of working age, will have begun, and having begun will gather speed increasingly.
I take a very different view from those who look with calmness upon what I regard as a frightening prospect. The view I would place before your Lordships, concurring with the noble Earl, is that the way to save unemployment and to maintain the standard of living is not to multiply the unborn. If this trend continues there will be more and more old people, fewer and fewer children, fewer producers, fewer taxpayers, and fewer fighters. That is the prospect, and it is enormously important that the people of this country should be made aware of it; that they should be brought up against the sobering truth which they will have to confront at some time or other. We have, in my diagnosis of the situation, to make the people of this country population conscious. We want to create an atmosphere, to create, if you like, a climate of thought in which the people will want, and are going to be encouraged to have, larger families. We have to make larger families the fashion. Larger families must become "the thing."
The facts and their grave implications must he brought home to the people of this country. What are the facts? The noble Earl has referred to some of them. He has pointed out that mothers are failing to reproduce themselves by an extent of about 25 per cent. That is a pretty formidable prospect. The ebb started in 1870, and after 1900 or thereabout the number of births began to fall. But the number was still well in excess of the number of deaths, and the population, round about 1901, was still replacing itself. It was after the last war that the tide really began to turn in earnest. The reproduction rates then fell below unity—they fell below replacement level. But the population was still, for a time, on the rising curve because mortality was still falling, and births still exceeded deaths. But, my Lords, the sands are nearly dry now. If the current trend continues the population, as the noble Earl said, must

901
fall, within the next generation and the decline will gather great speed in two generations. It goes ahead almost in geometric progression.
These are the facts; what are the implications? What are the implications of an ageing and declining population, declining in its virile working section as well as in its total numbers? The onus of production will fall on fewer shoulders; there will be relatively few and decreasing producers. The burden of taxation will tall on fewer heads; the vast sums required for the Budget will have to be found from the productivity of these relatively few and decreasing producers. The responsibility for defence will fall on fewer backs, there will be fewer to work and fewer to fight. And, let us face it squarely, if these trends continue, Britain will be unable to discharge the functions of a world. Power, she will be unable to discharge the obligations of an Imperial Power and partner. And this is not only a matter of defence; it is a question of peopling the empty spaces of the Dominions and the Colonies. As it is—it was said in debate in this House only a few weeks ago—we cannot face the prospect of having to spare our young and fit, and, if things go on as they are doing, we shall be still less able to spare them. We cannot help because of the frightening fall in numbers. But if we were to accept that situation, and to take no remedying steps it would be abdication. That is a situation which none of us can accept.
It is perhaps important, and I think perhaps it is useful, that one should look a little afield and see how we stand in relation to other countries in this matter. It is very remarkable—it has, I think, been pointed out to your Lordships already, and I certainly intended to refer to it—that in the course of two generations the prospective mother population of this country has decreased by two-thirds. Throughout Northern and Western Europe, by the middle 'thirties, the average number of potential mothers born had also fallen, as in this country, by two thirds during the last sixty or seventy years. Even in countries like the United States, Australia and New Zealand reproduction has been only just hovering at the replacement point, and sometimes dipped below. No doubt your Lordships will have seen Professor Harrod's recent pamphlet in which he makes this very striking statement, which seems, unhappily, to be
902
borne out by the facts. "The British, French and Scandinavian peoples," he says, "are in immediate jeopardy." He does not mention the Germans, but the Germans are in no better case, because Hitler's bonuses, though they speeded up marriage and induced first children—and that only for a time—have had no lasting effect on the size of German families. It is not the first or even the second births which count in this matter, but the large families—the third, fourth and fifth children.
Let us look into this matter a little further, because the striking fact emerges that the world balance is shifting. The main feature of the nineteenth century was what has been called "the swarming of the Western European peoples." They swarmed at home, abroad and overseas. They have ceased to swarm. In one country after another, rising living standards have brought falling reproduction rates, so that they have gained a whole new world but they have lost the will to grow. I emphasize that phrase—the will to grow. It is not biology or physical disability or sterility that sets limits to fertility; it is social habit, custom, psychology; it is a matter of deliberate choice. In the words of Sir John Clapham, "it is two-thirds a spiritual problem."
While these nations have lost the will to grow, other peoples still swarm. The cycle of population is still moving upwards in Central and in Eastern Europe. New cycles of population increase are in progress in Asia. I wonder whether your Lordships have looked at the very remarkable figures for Russia. In spite of civil war, invasion, disease and famine, they show a very remarkable trend. In the twenty years from 1920 to 1939, the population of European Russia increased from 103,000,000 to 129,000,000, an increase of 26 per cent. In the same twenty years, the population of Asiatic Russia increased from 29,000,000 to 41,000,000, an increase of 46 per cent. It is clear, therefore, that from the Urals eastward there is a new powerhouse of population and energy which has already done much to save Russia in this war, and is a certain centre of expansion and development in the post-war world. In Japan the rate of increase is at a peak. No doubt it will slacken, but it will long remain very formidable. In the Netherlands Indies, India and China the cycle of increase is still sweeping upwards—checked, no

903
doubt, by death, disease, starvation and war, but still sweeping upwards. It may be that Russia, Japan, India and China will in their turn come to check their growth as their standards of living rise, as has happened in the Western countries, but, as you look round the world, the contrast is very striking and very significant.
The war has done anything but help the Western countries in these respects. All the conditions of scattered Armies, privation, starvation and slavery have struck at the European peoples until, in the words of Sir John Clapham, "I foresee," he says, "a multitude of never-born Europeans which may well exceed the losses of battle." When the war ends and normal home life restarts, are the old trends that have brought the Western world, and this country in particular, to this pass to be resumed? That is the question which the noble Earl has posed in his Motion. Is it inevitable, is it inescapable, that the so-called developed countries, industrialized, commercialized, civilized in the material sense, should cease to grow? I say of Britain at least, surely it is not. It is a matter of choice, and therefore the trend can be turned.
I want briefly to give three aids to this reversal of a course which is leading to national disaster. First, let the people know; inform them of the peril. Second, remove all the deterrents to having a large family. Third, set out consciously to create a new habit and a new custom; as I have said before, make families fashionable, make large families "the thing." It will be a great experiment, because the problem is a dual one: it is the problem of raising living standards and reproduction standards at the same time. In previous times they have moved in reverse; we now have to make them move together. It is a great experiment, but at the same time it is a major test of our civilization. Let me take my three aids—they are no more than aids, because at bottom the problem is spiritual and personal. I say first that it is the duty of every leader of opinion in the pulpit, in Parliament, in the Press and elsewhere not to agitate for more cannon-fodder in the totalitarian sense of Hitler and Mussolini—that is not succeeding in increasing the size of families—but to put the facts and their implications before the British people; because they, after all,
904
have the right and also the duty to decide the future of themselves and of their country. There has been too much reticence, too much coyness, too much ignorance, too much stupidity, too much neglect of the nation's plainest need. What is that plainest need? It is salvation from extinction. Nothing less is at issue.
Remove also the deterrents. I would ask of the Government that from now onwards every branch of social, economic and fiscal policy should be selective, biased and weighted in favour of large families. It was one of the virtues of Beveridge that he did see the family problem as a whole—security, maternity benefit, children's allowances. The Government have accepted the suggestion of children's allowances. I am not here to discuss the amount of them, but I say, do it now. Although they are little enough, they are one small item in the right direction; and these allowances—and this is the only point which I would make on the question of amount—must increase progressively with the size of the family. The programme should be higher allowances for later children. Then, as the noble Earl has said, there is the question of taxation. We must increase the allowances in favour of families; the larger the family, the larger proportionately the help which they must receive, and there the watchword should be bigger relief to later children. Then there is the question of houses, and the intractable problem of rents. The larger the family, the larger the home necessary. There the Government's watchword should be, the larger the home, the lower the rent. I know that that will require the intervention and help of the central and local authorities; but it is vital: the larger the home, the lower the rent. I shall say nothing of the problem of education, except that more help will be required for the later children.
The main point of the argument which I am addressing to your Lordships is that it is large families that are wanted, not simply early marriages and first and second children, in the near future. It is the third, fourth and fifth children that count, and the country must be prepared to give third, fourth and fifth children special terms. That is the condition of our continued existence. But in the last resort, as I have said, it is not the material side, the material aids, that will

905
decide—they are negative and secondary—it is the will and spirit of the parents that count. Give them more help, remove all obstacles, it will still depend on what they choose to do. We have to create a public spirit, a state of mind, an atmosphere in which the State will welcome children, in which the parents will want them for their own sakes and, in the context of the nation's future, for the sake of the free society to which they belong.
As I began, so I end. We have to make large families fashionable, we have to make large families "the thing". They have to be made fashionable to parents, fashionable in the eyes of the State, fashionable among house builders, fashionable in the eyes of landlords, fashionable in the eyes of lodging-house keepers. That stupid cry or notice of which we know, "No children," is anti-social, is anti-patriotic. It must be brought into disrepute, whether "children" is the decision of the married or the prohibition of those who own and run, the nation's accommodation. We have to make large families "the thing". If I have presented your Lordships with a sombre picture it is because the facts I have depicted are in themselves sombre, but there is a light to be seen, and I would put it that this is the nation's mission—to save itself in the long avenues of peace, as it has done on the short, steep slopes of war. It is a high mission for upon it depends the future. It is, worth pursuing; let us pursue it.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I feel sure that the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has rendered a great service in bringing this grave matter to the attention of your Lordships' House. Just four years ago, in Slime, 1939, I had a Motion on the same subject, which was very fully debated. On that occasion many noble Lords, from all quarters of the House, emphasized the gravity of the problem. Lord Stamp, whose death by enemy action has been so great a loss to this House, the noble Viscount. Lord Dawson of Penn, win speaks with unrivalled authority on this subject, the present Archbishop of Canterbury, then Archbishop of York, Lord Snell and several other noble Lords all spoke in the same sense; but: from the Government Bench on that: occasion the debate was ended in a very different mood. The
906
noble Lord, Lord Templemore, whose elevation to the Privy Council has, I am sure, gratified all quarters of this House, speaking then, not I am sure from any depth of passionate conviction of his own, but rather as the mouthpiece of the Department he represented, gave a reply which was characterized by official optimism at its worst.
He quoted a number of figures by the Registrar-General, the general upshot of which was that after all there was nothing very much amiss, that there was a great deal of exaggeration, that trends might be different before long, and at all events that for another thirty years the situation was not likely to be very grave. And that was followed by a Government White Paper much in the same sense, clamping down any feeling of alarm, and by implication discountenancing anything in the nature of a national agitation on this subject. It seems to me that that was quite wrong, and I sincerely hope that the noble Duke who will reply to this debate will be able to speak in a different sense and with a different tendency.
I shall not repeat the, I fear, somewhat lengthy arguments that I laid before your Lordships' House four years ago, but I should like to put one statistical fact which was not included among those given by the two noble Lords who have already addressed the House. It is this, that towards the end of the Victorian period, at the time of the census of 1891, of all the married women of child-bearing age one in four gave birth to a child in any given year. At the time of the last census in 1931 the figure was not one in four, but one in eight. That is the central fact of the whole situation, which would have had an absolutely catastrophic effect on the population if it had not been that the death-rate has been considerably reduced in that period, and especially the. infant mortality rate, which has been halved. But still that has gone but a little way towards making good the terrible deficiency in the birth-rate that has occurred within the last half century. Since that debate in 1939 there has been a slight increase in the birth-rate. The tendency has, on the whole, been upward, but it is of very small moment. I cannot believe that the increase has been due to the effect of our speeches in this House, but it has probably been clue to the larger number of marriages during the last few years and that, in turn, seems

907
to have been due to two causes. The marriage rate fell during the great depression of 1931–34, and when that was over probably a number of couples who would have got married in those years but who had to postpone their weddings on account of their hard economic situation, got married later on, and so raised the marriage rate in the more recent years, and consequently the birth-rate. Secondly, the oubreak of war has had the effect perhaps of expediting marriages between young people who had been intending perhaps to wait two or three years but who, when the man was going to face the risks of war, thought they had better get married at once. Furthermore, the fact that marriage allowances are payable to the wives and children of those serving in the Forces may have had some share in such an inducement. So that the slight increase in the birth-rate, such as it is, has been due partly to the fact that we are making good the arrears of the past, and also making drafts upon the future, and it is not to be considered any ground for complacency. For it still leaves the birth-rate very far below the reproduction rate for the existing population, or anything really approaching the existing population, in future years.
Is this prospective fail in population a good thing or a bad thing? Some people think there would be no harm if the population of this country were to fall, at all events by a few millions. You hear it said: "We are too closely packed in this island. We have frequently great numbers of unemployed. Let the population be a little smaller and then the situation in both respects would be eased." We are somewhat too closely packed in parts of this island, but it is a question of overcrowding, and overcrowding is not the same thing as over-population. I have seen a calculation that the whole of our urban population, properly spaced out, with garden cities and garden suburbs, and with what is so necessary—room to live—could be properly housed on 6 per cent. of the area of this island, leaving 94 per cent. for agriculture or national parks and purposes of recreation and amenity. The right solution for the overcrowding of some sections of the population is not to reduce that population, but proper town and country planning. If we had town and country planning we could have on this island a much
908
larger population even than we have now without any overcrowding or feeling that we were too closely packed together.
As for the problem of unemployment, every student of economics knows you may have just as large a ratio of unemployment in a smaller population as in a bigger population. The history of this country shows that when we had a much smaller population than now about the middle of the nineteenth century, there was from time to time a most grave problem of unemployment. Whenever a trade depression came, with a population half or two-thirds what it is to-day, there were hundreds of thousands, even approaching a million, people unemployed. If we were to suppose that the population of this country was reduced by one-third, and if then some cycle of world trade depression came upon that smaller population, we should have exactly the same proportion of unemployed as the larger population had had in the recent past. Therefore it is a fallacy to suggest that a small population is likely to be a cure for unemployment. But if the population of this island were to be reduced by one-third, or approaching one-third, as according to present trends it will be within the life-time of boys and girls now at school, then obviously the nation would be gravely weakened. As has been pointed out by the noble Lords who have just spoken, it means an increase in the number of the aged at the expense of the young. The reduction of one-third would not be equally distributed over the whole range of ages. It would mean the advent of fewer young, but not the departure of more old.
Just as a material body has its centre of gravity, so one may say a population may have its age centre—the average age of those living at a given moment. If the birth-rate is insufficient, the effect is that the age centre shifts further and further back year by year towards the age of 50 or 60. Man-power thereby is lessened, the volume of production falls, while from a strategic point of view the nation is greatly weakened. Furthermore, this country, which has been the breeding ground for the stock that goes abroad to our Dominions and to some extent to our Colonies, would no longer be able to supply the British stock of those under-populated lands. So it is not a good thing that the population

909
should be reduced. Nor is it a question of equal balance of advantage or disadvantage so that it does not matter very much, that there is something to be said on both sides. Redaction of the population would be a grave disaster to the nation, and the peril which faces us is one that should give profound concern to all good citizens.
What is the cause of this extraordinary fall in the birth-rate, this practice of small families which is now spreading to all grades of the population? Unquestionably it is mainly economic. People are more careful about their financial position. They are not careless and easygoing, not caring whether they have six or ten children and letting come what may. It is to a great extent a question of forethought. Young people who might be prospective parents deliberately come to the conclusion that they would be doing their duty better to the next generation if they have one or two children living in comfort, and with care for their education and prospects, than if they have four, five, or six children brought up in hardship and penury. Parliament itself has contributed to this tendency by enacting, quite rightly, that young children should not be put to industrial employment. The effect of that perfectly legitimate and proper measure has undoubtedly been that among the poorer classes each child is not regarded as an economic asset at no distant time, but rather as a long continuing financial liability; while the middle classes in particular, with the high cost of education for their children, have quite deliberately limited the number of their families for what appear to them sound reasons.
With this desire for smaller families there has now become possible the means to ensure the smallness of the family by devices for efficient contraception. The profound effect of this new feature of our civilization has not yet been realized, but it is likely to produce great changes in the customs of mankind in many directions, not only relating to the size of the population but with regard to certain aspects of sexual relations in general. As my noble friend Lord Nathan has said, this is a matter which is within human control. It is not a question of physical sterility. It is not due to any natural cause, if one can use that very misleading word "natural." It does not arise out of any condition beyond human control. It is
910
the result of deliberate decisions on the part of individual parents. Therefore it can be affected by influencing those decisions. In effect, the younger generation says to society, "Your social arrangements penalize families of four or five children, and so long as that is so we intend to have families of only one or two children, or no children at all."
That trend may be changed and, as Lord Nathan has said, may be changed as the result of social actions. In the last debate we had four years ago suggestions were made in that sense. Those I laid before your Lordships then were practically the same as those which have been outlined to-day. Firstly, family allowances. Since then trade unions have abandoned their opposition, consequently the Labour Party has abandoned its agnosticism, and there is a general agreement in favour of family allowances. The Government, following upon the Beveridge Report, have declared they embrace them as part of their policy, tar: the Government unfortunately have on financial grounds decided that the family allowance of 8s. a week after the first child, proposed by Sir William Beveridge, should be reduced to 5s., with the excuse or justification that certain measures arising out of the Social Services will be adopted which will be worth, on an average, perhaps 2s. 6d. per child and that that will be a better substitute. For my own part I do not think so. I think it is essential that the cash money that comes into the household shall be adequate, more or less, for the actual sustenance of the child, and the figure of 8s. ought not to be reduced in any circumstances. Secondly, it is a question of housing accommodation suitable for families and obtainable at suitable rents. Thirdly, general improvement of the public health would contribute to the lower death-rate and possibly to an increase of the birthrate, and would help towards the end in view. But most important—and here I fully agree with my noble friend who has just spoken—is it that influences should be brought to bear by the Government, and through all agencies that can affect public opinion, to influence the sentiment of the nation in this regard.
All our figures assume that the present trend may continue till 1971 and up to the year 2000 and onwards, but trends can be altered. Again and again in political life one sees a tendency going forward that

911
one thinks will, in course of time, carry the nation to such and such a point. But long before that happens there has been some change in public opinion and the trend has turned to quite a different direction. So we should, I suggest, through the Government in general and in the Press and all the agencies that influence public opinion, impress upon the nation that this is a most grave matter, and that the whole health and safety of the country is ultimately involved. We should bring all those agencies which in war-time have proved so extraordinarily successful, those agencies of propaganda which do influence in great degree public opinion and public action, into play in order to make the nation population-minded; and by that means carry on a propaganda for propagation.
LORD GEDDES: My Lords, I am sure we are all deeply grateful to Lord De La Warr for having brought this Motion before your Lordships to-day. The subject we are discussing cuts right to the root of statesmanship, to the future and safety of our country. I do not disagree with anything that has been said by any noble Lords who have spoken as to the desirability of taking this step, that step or the other step. I venture to think that the real root cause of this very serious fall in the birth-rate is something that has not yet been mentioned. This fall began, so far as I can interpret figures, in the decade 1780–1790. There was not a very large fall till 1830, but from 1830 onwards this trend has made itself manifest. That may sound a ridiculous statement because we all know of the enormous increase in population that there was with the change in economic conditions following the industrial revolution. But in point of fact the fertility rate was lower and the increase of population was the result of a vastly increased survival rate. That increase in survival rate has gone on progressively and is going on, but of course it is not the same thing as having an adequate supply of young life.
I happened to be looking, not with reference to this debate, at a volume England 1870–1914 in the Oxford History last week and I came on the statistics for that period and going back to 1850. They show, what your Lordships all know, that there has been a steady fall in the birthrate and that that fall is differential, affect-
912
ing more severely the families of what one might describe as the more prosperous classes, and especially the families of the more intellectual classes, and affecting less severely agricultural labourers, miners and unskilled workers. Then the Oxford History goes on to say quite definitely that this is due to the spread of the use of contraceptives. I doubt if that is true to anything like the full extent. Contraceptives were not being used in 1780; they were not being used to any extent in 1830. The first propaganda in favour of contraception was in the years 1822, 1823 and 1824, or about that period, anyhow. And yet at that time the birth-rate was definitely falling.
Now we do know, and we know quite well, that that tissue which is the most mysterious, precious and interesting of all living tissues, the germ plasm, has its own life history, and it does move in directions which are very difficult at times to follow. Beyond all this question of the fall in the birth-rate, I am certain there is a biological problem and a biological problem of the most serious kind. I think it was Sir Archdall Reid who first pointed out that within the range of any one people you could get a family whose germ plasm was falling in its vitality, and I think it was he who coined the phrase "the curse of the heiress," the dying family with its possessions gradually concentrating on one girl who then becomes the heiress, is married and the curse of the heiress falls on the family into which she marries and obliterates the life. That is a fact which has frequently been observed and it does mean that there are strains in the plasm which have not got the reproductive power.
This whole question of what is happening to the germ plasm is such that it is possible to understand it in the human being only slowly and you have to turn to animals to see what is going on. We do know this quite definitely, that if you take any book on the physiology of reproduction you will find a whole chapter in it dealing with that matter. Take Marshall's book. In a whole chapter you will find that wild animals brought into captivity, whose conditions of life were changed, at once show, perhaps a complete cessation of, or anyhow a drop in, reproduction. You will find page after page describing how changes of diet change reproduction. You will find that when increasing

913
quantities of meat are being eaten by animals you get an immediate fall when you pass a certain point in the rate of reproduction. Exactly the same thing happens if the animals are fed on too fat-forming a diet. You get fatty degeneration of the genital glands and a fall in reproduction.
Now go back to what we have just noted about the human population. Its fall in the birth-rate began in the decade 1780 to 1790 and came along slowly during the period of the Napoleonic wars. The fall was still slow during the economic chaos after the Napoleonic wars. Then in the 1830's it begins to go down at the very time when the whole standard of living was going up and when the whole conditions of life were changed by the tighter packing of people in the cities. Does not that suggest to your Lordships that there might be something comparable between that and the experience with regard to animals? It does to my mind.
It might be due to the whole change that was taking place in the conditions of life that this germ plasm, this marvellous tissue which had passed in a never-broken chain through generation after generation, which had tolerated the most dreadful privations and survived the most dreadful struggles, yet suddenly, in some places, in the human stock, seemed to lose its capacity, or, one might almost say, its desire, to reproduce. It is a strange thing that with all this new luxury, this new increased nutrition, we Should have a sudden drop of that sort in reproductive power.
But there is something more about the germ plasm. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, spoke of making large families a fashion. Why did they go out of being the fashion? If you were to take the germ plasm which forms part of the genital glands of each male and each female who is normal and healthy, and give it a colour, and you examined the body of an individual, you would find that colour diffused through his whole body. You would find that that colour was colouring the thoughts of that individual, and if there were a strong and active germ plasm there would be a desire to have children. After all these millions of years, during which the germ plasm has survived and forced people to reproduce, do you think that if it were still as
914
strong and active in these people it would be borne to earth by trivial points, trivial demands for social prominence or whatever it might be? I do not think so. This disease, which is affecting the whole of the North-Western white race—Scandinavia, Germany, France, ourselves and the people who have gone from these countries to America—came on them progressively, as various articles of diet and changes in the proportion of the diet were associated with the great rise of prosperity due to the application of power to industry. It is quite wrong to say post therefore propter. I believe that much of this unwillingness to have children has really got its origin in the germ plasm which itself is not actively reproductive, and that is affecting the psychology of human beings.
It seems to me that either we should have a Royal Commission to go into all these points, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, or, as I believe would be much better, we should form the real General Staff of Health of which I spoke the other day, because this question of reproduction is part of what I was then speaking of. The positive health of the individual comes from the positive health of a stock, and the positive health of a stock is only possible where you have a positively healthy germ plasm. It is spread out in time, not in space. It forms a network and it is a most remarkable net because at each knotting in that net the germ plasm itself blossoms forth as a new individual who is to be the servant and support of that stock, and in turn is to make arrangements for the weaving of further meshes in the net. This description of the plasm as a net is an old simile or metaphor, but it has always been very helpful to me in my thoughts on this group of subjects. The germ plasm apparently has the capacity of immortality on earth as contrasted With the short-lived individuals who carry it, support it and serve it in their day and generation. It is the germ plasm, through the most marvellous mechanism, that is now gradually being uncovered by biologists. There is no doubt whatever that while it is within the body of the individual it profoundly modifies his mind and thought and outlook.
There is one snag that frequently comes in during discussions of this sort and that is a confusion between reproduction and

915
sex. In the female mammal, including women, the actual reproductive act, not the birth of the child, is the formation of an ovum which is passed freely into the cavity of the body. That goes on from the time of puberty to the time of the menopause without anybody ever knowing anything about it, least of all the woman herself. One after the other these ova are passed out. In the body of the male the sperms are formed and they are then collected. The only part that sex has to play in connexion with reproduction, the actual sexual act, is in the passage of the sperms into the passages of the female. The actual sexual act bears no more responsibility for the sperms that are passed than the postman delivering a letter at the door has for the contents of the letter he delivers. This may sound rather irrelevant. It is not, because you will find that there is a good deal of evidence to show that as the function of reproduction tends to recede the tendency to sex increases.
This is all getting rather esoteric, rather far away perhaps from the points which were originally raised by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, but it is not really so far away, because what I am trying to do is to suggest to your Lordships that there is a wide biological field of which there is some knowledge but of which there is also great ignorance. I would urge most strongly upon your Lordships that we should say to the Government: "We have got this population problem, we realize all the general implications such as have been talked of to some extent by the noble Earl, Lord De La War, Lord Nathan and Lord Samuel, but we want to know whether there is anything more behind it, whether there is any biological knowledge which will help us to answer the question. Is there any hope, at the present stage of scientific knowledge, of finding a way to reverse this trend, if it be in fact a trend, of the plasm?"
You have got to have a scientific staff, not doing research work, but doing the sifting of knowledge that is acquired, or you must have a Royal Commission to decide whether such a staff is desired. I would beg the Government to realize that there are grounds for believing that there is a biological problem at the back of this. It might be, for example, in cer-
916
tain places, due to substances such as coffee. It is most extraordinary the effect that coffee, strong coffee, can have on the human being. It actually changes the shape and sometimes the activity of the germ cells—you can see the change under the miscroscope quite distinctly. It may be due to all sorts of things. There may be electrical conditions which affect reproduction and development—nobody knows. Therefore I think that it would be well that we should ask the Government to initiate steps, one way or another, to have this whole problem most fully investigated, not assuming that it is only a political problem, but believing that it may also be a biological problem, a biological problem which, within time, may be solved.
THE EARL OF IVEAGH: My Lords, may I be permitted to say a word or two upon this subject? I happen to own a very large number of cattle, and the Cambridge authorities have been doing a great deal of work connected with the reproduction of my cattle, because, somewhere about two years before this war, some of my animals began to show signs of so-called sterility. It was not really sterility, in the full sense of the word, but delayed fertility. Up to now it is still undecided as to why these animals, which in other ways were perfectly healthy, did not reproduce themselves as rapidly as they should have done. I can only say that in the last year these animals, or their younger sisters, have recovered. It may be because we have paid more attention to the bulls. It may be because I have had more and better food grown naturally in the neighbourhood for their support. But at any rate the trouble, this sterility, as it has been called, has disappeared. On the other hand, I have seen it occur in an older herd in Surrey. It may be due to food, but it probably is not the same trouble as I had at my place.
I am sure that when you look into this matter of the growth of the population you find yourself dealing with something which is very complicated. I feel that besides all the political reasons—which I really believe have their effect—there are these biological reasons of which the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, has just spoken. I am sure that these biological factors can have the effect which we see at this moment. I urge the Government to take some steps that may co-ordinate and co-relate all these various pieces of informa-

917
tion which are being elicited rapidly in connexion with the study of animals and animal reproduction, so that the knowledge may be applied in dealing with the question of human reproduction. It seems to me that, at the moment, there is no authority and no means for collecting all that information. I submit that it is of vital importance that these matters should be watched all the time, and I hope that the Government will do something in this direction.
VISCOUNT DAWSON OF PENN: My Lords, I will not trouble your Lordships very much with data. It may seem that the facts are abundantly clear and that their significance is ominous. We have had a fall in the birth-rate steadily from about 1880 onwards, so that now too women, in the active generative period of their lives, who at one time would have produced 150 girl babies—for it is only girl babies, the potential mothers, that count—will now produce only 75 or 76. So it is clear that the nation is not replacing itself. Hitherto many people have thought little of this. They have been disposed to say: "Why worry?—the nation is still increasing in numbers." They have missed the second significant fact, which has been brought out clearly by several noble Lords to-day, that the composition of the population has been going wrong, that there has been been an increase in the proportion of people over sixty and a decrease in the proportion of those under twenty. This means that the inevitable thing will happen, and you will have a nation which is no longer replenishing itself. You have the pensioners beginning almost to overreach the producers, and life, the life of the country, like the life of the family, is in a poor way when it is deprived of the force, the vigour, the love and the adventure of youth. A nation, like a family, is dependent on young lives coming up constantly to replace those which are wearing out.
Those two facts, the change in the composition of the population and the decline of the birth-rate, are accepted by every-. one. Now my noble friend Lord Geddes has taken what I may call the biological long view, and I agree with him that there is a matter for inquiry, not by a Royal Commission, I suggest, but by a widely representative scientific body of inquiry like the Royal Society. But
918
when I come down to what I may call the near view—and I think that, for our purpose, we may content ourselves with comparing this century with the last century—from all the evidence known to me there is certainly no diminution in the love of children in this country. I should say that there is very strong love of children, and that, in my judgment, it is not diminishing one whit. Side by side with that there has developed a more sensitive conscience about the individual life.
If you compare this century with the last, the value which is attached by parents to the individual child is, in my submission, greater than it was in the last century. That is not due to any greater virtue; it is due to biological and social facts. The explanation, as I see it, lies in the big difference between man (and possibly some of the higher apes) and the other forms of animal life. With most of the animals to which we are devoted, sex relations are limited to what may be called the mating times; they are conditioned by the purpose of reproduction. I need take only certain familiar examples. If that were not so, would those of us who are fond of dogs be able to keep them at all? We are able to make dogs our faithful companions only because they have no use at all for the female except in season. Again, let us remember happy days of stalking in Scotland, where we saw the stags holding proudly aloof in the heights, as if there were no hinds in existence; and then, as the rutting season comes on, they descend gradually and live together for a short period, and then the stags go back to the hills. Those two examples illustrate the fundamental difference between the human race (and possibly some of the higher apes) and animal life.
In the human race, sex relations have a double purpose: not only do they serve the purpose of reproduction, but they are part and parcel of the physical attachment between people as husband and wife, and their periodical satisfaction is part of our civilization. We have therefore a different problem to face. In the last century one had a succession of pregnancies every eighteen months to two years, going on from the date of marriage until the fecundity of the couple had exhausted itself, and so there was a large birth-rate; but I would point out

919
that if all those children had lived, life would have been economically impossible. The real safety-valve was the high infant death-rate. The pregnancies of the last century far exceeded the number of surviving children. In hospitals, when one asked women how many children they had had, they used to reply "I had twelve and buried six." It was taken almost as a matter of course. People were accustomed in those days to lose their children, and expected to lose them, but our girls would break their hearts at losing one. Let me take the famous example of John Wesley. John Wesley was one of nineteen children, thirteen of whom died. To-day that sort of thing would never happen, and, if it did, we should probably say that for thirteen children out of nineteen to die was a large price to pay, even for a John Wesley. Think of the wastage of it all! Still, it is a fact that sex relations were rendered possible by the fact that there was a large infant death-rate.
Then there arose a social conscience. When people talk of the degeneration of the world I would point out that the social conscience to-clay is more developed than it was in the days of our mothers and grandmothers. A social conscience arose first of all from the dislike of losing children, and secondly from a dislike of the large infant death-rate. What happened? Whereas in the Victorian days the infant death-rate was 160 per thousand, it has come down and down until it is now 49. When you take away the large infant death-rate, it is economically impossible to have these large families; you cannot have them if some of them do not die off.
In my submission, it was that gradual pressure of events which led people not to the knowledge of contraception—because contraception was known, as my noble friend opposite said, at the beginning of the last century—but to bring contraception to the front of the stage. In this century people say that they do not want quantity of children but quality. In the old days, there was something like the survival of the fittest; the weaklier ones showed a greater tendency to die off, and there was some sort of rough-and-tumble which brought the fit ones to the top. To-day medicine is keeping people alive—not perhaps always desirably, but it is its duty to do so. So
920
there is only one alternative, and that is to go in for fitness; and that is what this generation is doing, and doing well. I hope I have made it clear—and in saying this I am sure that my colleagues who are in practice would agree with me—that the love of children is as great as ever, and the care of children has never before been so great. The amount of trouble which mothers take, and their intelligence in looking after their children, far exceed what would have been found fifty years ago.
I now come to the question of why parents keep their families small. I have scant belief in an insufficient fertility. If people have once had children and then decide to wait—sometimes too long—before having another, that is no lack of fertility. In case after case one finds that if contraception is taken off pregnancy begins, although not always as quickly as one would wish. I do not dispute with my noble friend Lord Geddes that there may be in the background a change in the germ plasm, but I am now taking the short view as between the last century and this and trying to compare the conditions. Why do parents keep their families so small? First of all, I think it is a first reaction to the knowledge which contraception gave them. Unfortunately there took place what I always regard as a great historic error, and that is that the Churches made the fundamental mistake of condemning contraception as such. By doing so they put themselves out of court. The average young person to-day says: "We have no use for them at all; we have made up our minds, and we mean to have contraception." The Churches put themselves out of court because they went against contraception as such. If, on the other hand, they had said that contraception rightly used is perfectly right—as in my judgment it is—and if they had said "But it must be used rightly; and it is your duty to secure adequate parenthood," then the Churches would have had the influence which they do not now possess. That error has slowly to be lived down. I suggest that one of the causes of smaller families is what may be termed anxiety and fear. There is no doubt, as has been said, that there is fear of unemployment, there is fear of want, there is fear for the careers of the children. For many years that has been noticed and,

921
since the total population was increasing, people did not appreciate the gravity of what they were doing.
I come back to the question of family allowances. It is agreed on all hands that family allowances are sound, if only for this reason, that before the days of birth control a child was inevitable when two people married, and therefore it was not in the interests of the State to take any interest but now a child is a voluntary contribution to the welfare of the State. Without going into the question of the amount, I would say that family allowances are, and will be, a great help as a contribution for every child that is born. But I do not think that alone will be sufficient. I get a fairly large correspondence, and I would like to quote a letter from a middle-aged married woman of humble origin. I do not know who she is, but she just touches the truth here:
"Taking the class to which I belong, the £4 to £6 a week wives, we think about poor old Beveridge. He means well, but does he honestly believe that giving us 8s.a week will get more babies in Britain of the sort that he wants?"
That letter goes on to refer to what is my second point, and that is the importance of housing. The writer says:
"We wives— no amount of family allowance is going to encourage us to have a family of four or five, unless you are going to give us better and more sensible houses to live in"
She also says:
"You go to one house, you find it is so built that the perambulator won't go into the front gate, nor will it go in at the door"
She goes into details one by one. For example:
"Just imagine putting the lavatory upstairs, and my boys all rushing in dirtying the house immediately I have done it up. I have no one to help me, no domestic help"
I think the points of this simple woman about housing are very apt.
We have to realize that children should be a choice, not a chance. Young married people should be told that the determination as to whether they have a child or not is their responsibility. I think on many grounds it can be brought home to them that the way to get health and preservation in life is the periodic use of the function of reproduction. There is little doubt that if children are suitably spaced, not all coming on top of one another, that will preserve the lives and the health of the parents. That is especially true in
922
these days of safe maternity. If I may say so, is it not time that our Prayer Book altered its service for the churching of women? The service for churching of women belongs to the septic midwifery days, and contains an exaggerated recital of the perils and trials of childbirth. What we need to impress on young women is that their pregnancy and maternity are safe proceedings.
I believe that propaganda is what is wanted—propaganda pointing out that the population is going down, that it depends on parents whether England remains a great Power, that the possession of children will bring them health and the enduring happiness of family life. That is of much higher value to them than the frittering away of their early years. I have very little doubt that, with a suitable propaganda, with family allowances, and with good housing, it will be possible to impress on their minds that it is in their own interest to have larger families, suitably spaced, and that they will be made to feel proud to play their part in contributing to the future of their own country.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will agree that my noble friend has rendered a really valuable service in calling the attention of your Lordships' House and of the public generally to this tremendously important question of the future population of our country. The question is one which bristles with difficulties. It is a hackneyed saying that you can prove anything with figures, and vital statistics do not, differ in that respect from other figures. The figures themselves, of course, cannot be disputed, but the inferences to be drawn from them both can be, and are, very violently disputed. People who are well placed to take a really authoritative view maintain that there is no reason to be alarmed about the present downward trend of the birthrate, while others who have made a profound study of the question view the figures with the utmost alarm. I am bound to say, speaking for myself, that I am among the alarmists. I came across this question first some years ago when I was collecting evidence for the Report of the Oversea Settlement Board, of which I was Chairman. It very soon became clear

923
when we were considering the question of emigration, that the moment was rapidly approaching when there would be no spare population at all of suitable age to emigrate. That was what first brought me into contact with this question. I am bound to say that until then I was among those who viewed the figures with complacency, and those people have been singularly silent in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
But if it is possible to dispute the inferences which may be drawn from the actual figures we have, the actual figures of births and deaths and of the ages at which death takes place, it is still more possible to disagree when we get into the realm of opinion, opinion as to what the tendency in the future is likely to be. To start with definitely known and ascertained facts, it is beyond doubt that the birth-rate per thousand of our population has fallen, and fallen steeply and rapidly, from the quinquennium 1876– 80, when it stood at 35·3 per thousand until quite recently, when in the quinquennium ending 1935 it stood at 15.3 per thousand. It is a staggering contrast. I do not want to weary your Lordships with a great list of figures, but I do ask you to consider that period rather more closely because it is possible, I think, that important deductions may be drawn. In the following figures I am taking each period of five years ending in the year I quote: In the period ending 1865 the birth-rate was 35.1 per thousand; 1870, 35.2 per thousand; 1875, 35·4 per thousand; 1880, 35·3 per thousand; 1885, 33·5 per thousand; 1890, 31.5 per thousand; 1895, 30·5 per thousand; 1900, 29·4 per thousand; 1905, 28.3 per thousand; 1910, 26.4 per thousand; 1915, 23.8 per thousand; 1920, 20.4 per thousand; 1925, 20.3 per thousand; 1930, 17.1. per thousand; 1935, 15.3 per thousand. That is a very remarkable list of figures, showing a steep and progressive decline in the number of births per thousand of the population.
This subject of the decline in the birth-rate is one in which all kinds of people take very great interest, and from which the protagonists of every kind of view draw ammunition to support their own arguments. The pacifist is fond of saying that women will not bear babies to be killed in the next
924
war; but the figures I have quoted hardly tend to support that view. The decline began long before we thought of world wars at all; it began at a time of great prosperity. The social reformer says that women will not bear babies to live in slums, to be unemployed, and draw the "dole"; but the evidence tends to show that the birth-rate is, if anything, higher in the slums than in garden suburbs, and higher in those classes which suffer most from the impact of economic stress than in those which enjoy a considerable measure of social security. By all means clear away slums and improve the housing of the people, but I do not believe that in themselves those measures would be a solution to this baffling problem. It is fair to say, on the other side, that in considering these figures it must be borne in mind that these years we have been considering followed the gigantic and outstanding growth of population in this and other Western countries which was undoubtedly one of the great population surges of all history. In our own country the population was more than trebled during the nineteenth century, and it is clearly impossible for that rate of growth to have continued indefinitely. If it had our population by the year 2001 would have been 111,000,000, and by the year 2101 more than 300,000,000. That rate could not have gone on.
The problem is by no means confined to this country, as Lord Geddes pointed out. Nearly all the countries of North-Western Europe, with the exception of Russia, are faced with a similar phenomenon. In Germany and Italy, as your Lordships will be aware, very considerable efforts were made by the Governments to stimulate the birth-rate, and these efforts are of considerable interest in studying the problem. In Italy the campaign had comparatively little effect, and though it is impossible to dogmatize about these matters, it seems probable that this was because the inducements offered were not very substantial and because Italy was still, relatively, a fertile country with a relatively high birth-rate, and therefore one less capable of expansion. In Germany the efforts made to stimulate fertility did meet with a substantial though by no means remarkable measure of success. They got their birth-rate up from just under 15 per thousand to just over

925
19 per thousand; but it is striking that, in spite of the considerable material inducements, propaganda, medals, all kinds of methods, the Germans only succeeded in getting their birth-rate up to just about half what it was fifty years ago. As Lord Nathan said, it is probably true that to a considerable extent that stimulated birthrate was not a permanent addition to the country's population, but represented an ante-dating, an anticipating, of marriages and births which would in any case have taken place. The Germans attribute one-third of the increase to that cause, and believe that nearly two-thirds of the increase was of a permanent nature.
The problem in Germany differed from ours in one very important respect, which was that birth control in Germany was practised to a very large extent, not by means of contraception, as here, but by means of abortion. There seems to be very little doubt that by enforcing laws against abortion, and by using the formidable machinery of Nazi power to terrorize the medical profession, the German Government had a weapon to its hand far more potent than any a Government in this country would readily find if it decided, for any reason, to try and stimulate the birth-rate. The war came too soon to make it possible for any definite deductions to be drawn from the German experiments. They had only been going on six years or so, and in a matter of vital statistics six years is not long enough for any real judgment to be formed. But it seems fair to say that their efforts by means of propaganda and material inducements did meet with a certain measure of success. They did produce an immediate increase in the birth-rate. But the moment you leave the realm of actual figures and enter that of opinions almost any conclusion may be drawn. Those who take a gloomy view of the trends of population maintain — and I think there is a good deal in the contention—that all these efforts did no more than ante-date births. They encouraged early marriages, and they did for a limited number of years stimulate the birth-rate, but it is not established that they did the fundamental thing if a larger population is desired— that is, increase the number of children per family.
There again I am in agreement with the noble Lord opposite (Lord Nathan) and others that that is the real fundamental fact we must face. If we want a larger birth-
926
rate we must take measures to secure larger families. The average family of the Victorian era has been replaced by the smaller family of to-day. These Victorian families created and, to a very large extent, peopled the British Empire and made an important contribution to the United States. They are not being born to-day. It does not seem probable, as far as one can study the trends, that they will be born in the future. The tendency is not confined to this country or to Western Europe. It is almost equally marked in the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand, where at least it cannot be urged that overcrowding is the cause. In Australia the birth-rate has fallen from about 27 per thousand in the decade 1901–11 to 17.1 in 1936. In New Zealand during the same period it has fallen from 27 per thousand to 16.6. In Canada it still remains relatively high at 20 per thousand, but there is reason to believe that that figure is accounted for to a large extent by the very high birth-rate in the Province of Quebec. In South Africa the figure is still high among the white population—24 per thousand—but there, again, the white population is by no means all of British descent; if you take the people of British stock it seems probable that the tendency is very much the same.
As I have indicated, opinion comes into these matters to a very large extent. I cannot, as Government spokesman, make myself responsible for a definite statement, but the opinion has been expressed by competent persons that the birth-rate equivalent to a full replacement under the conditions obtaining in Great Britain today would be in the neighbourhood of 19.5 per thousand. We are well below that now. By replacement rate I mean the birth-rate that will maintain the population at a constant level. In this country and in many other countries, as well as in the Commonwealth of Australia and in New Zealand, the birth-rate is well below this figure. It is quite impossible to make any authoritative statement as to future trends. It seems tolerably clear that in order to maintain the number of births per year required to keep our population stable, let alone to increase it, there will have to be a very considerable increase in fertility in future years owing to the fact that the mothers of the generation immediately following our own have already been born.

927
There will in twenty years be substantially fewer women of child-bearing age in Great Britain than there are to-day.
Your Lordships will expect me to say something about causes, but here we leave the realm of fact altogether and it is impossible for me to do more than give a catalogue of possible causes, every one of which has some advocates but none of which can be regarded as more than one out of many complex factors all tending towards the same end. There is the fact that in days gone by a family was the only possible insurance against old age for the great majority of the wage earners. On the low wages prevailing in the nineteenth century they had little or no opportunity of saving. There was no old age pension and the family was, in fact, the only possible provision against starvation in old age. There was also the fact that children. in those unregenerate days be-came wage earners at a very much earlier age than they do to-day and thus became assets instead of liabilities very much sooner. It is the fact that a child's expectation of life to-day is vastly more secure than it was, and that the urge to have a considerable number of children in order that there may be at least some survivors is therefore less than it was. There is the biological factor to which the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, referred in his most interesting and stimulating speech.
There is also that factor, which I for my part am inclined to think has been exaggerated, which has been described as the competition between a Baby Austin and a human baby with all the other allied causes in the way of increased opportunities for spending money outside one's home instead of rearing a family inside it. I am inclined to think that is a factor, but I believe it is a factor which has been exaggerated, because the sinister phenomenon of a rapid fall in the birth-rate has taken place in countries and communities where the Baby Austin does not exist and where the other factors which have been mentioned do not exist either. In Bulgaria, for instance, there has been a steady and rapid fall in the birth-rate, yet in that country many of those things to which we are inclined to attribute the decline in birth-rate do not operate.
Then there is the fact that methods of contraception have become readily available and understood in every household.
928
Many people believe this to be the fundamental cause, but I am by no means sure that this is so, and that it is not rather the case of a demand creating a supply than a supply creating a demand. Again, there is evidence for believing that the birth-rate has fallen among communities in parts of the world where birth-control has resulted from the practice of abortion rather than from contraception so that you cannot be sure that is one of the main causes. I am inclined to think that an important contributory cause is the fact that one of the desires most deeply implanted in the human breast is the desire to give one's children at least as good a start in life as its parents had, if not indeed a better one, and it may well be that the constantly rising standards of living of the years during which; the fall in the birth-rate has been so marked has made this desire so difficult of attainment that this has been an important contributory factor. I can express no definite opinion.
I have given your Lordships a series of possible reasons, or possible contributory reasons. My own experience has been that the more one studies this question the more baffling it becomes and the more one realizes the necessity of avoiding generalizations and over-simplification. The subject is one of immense importance. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, raised the question of whether in fact we could afford a decrease in population. To answer that I think we have only to ask ourselves two very simple questions. Are we burdened with a surplus of man-power to-day? Have we the people to populate the countries of the Empire which will undoubtedly carry, and carry successfully, a very much larger population than they have today? It is a striking fact that in the year 1913 the movement of population outwards from England to the Empire was 223,521. In 1937, the last year for which I have figures, the net movement was 8,056, and that movement was inwards to this country and not outwards to the empty spaces. I think those two very simple facts answer at once the question whether we can afford to view with equanimity a rapid decline in our birth-rate. The subject is one of great complexity, and much confusion may arise through an insufficient appreciation of what are debatable issues on the one hand and what on the other hand are the real facts which may be obscured through a dependence upon statistical ex-

929
amination and demonstration for their establishment.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Health believes that it would help to a clearer understanding of the position, both on the part of your Lordships' House and of the public generally, if the more technical statistical elements were isolated and dealt with in the form of an impartial statement covering the whole of the necessary statistical background. With the object of meeting what is felt to be a real need in this respect, my right honourable friend proposes to publish a document on the lines of the recent White Paper, in which the statistical outlook would be set out and discussed in a reasoned and balanced manner. Such a document would necessarily be confined to the factual aspect of the question, but would take into account such evidence as has become available since the preparation of the White Paper to which my noble friend referred, and it could embrace a longer future period than is dealt with in the document which, as the noble Earl pointed out, does not go beyond 1971.
I hope I have said enough to satisfy my noble friend that the Government are thinking about this question. I should like to say once more how very much I think the House is in the noble Earl's debt. We have heard from all quarters of the House most interesting speeches in which there has been expressed a singular unanimity of view. A powerful demand was made from many quarters for a really authoritative inquiry into this matter and I will see to it that that request is passed on to my right honourable friend. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be satisfied, and that he will realize that the Government have an eye on this question and will pay careful attention to the representations which he has made.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will agree that this debate has been worth while. It has resulted, I think, in a quite unanimous expression of opinion as to the importance of this subject. I am sure all who have spoken in this debate would like to thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire, for the reply which he has made on behalf of the Government. I am not quite sure whether to sympathize with him for the brief he received from the Government or
930
to congratulate him on the extraordinarily good job that he made of it. It is perfectly clear that he is just as conscious as anyone in your Lordships' House of the true position. I think we are all glad to know that the Government are prepared at least to make one step forward by having a statistical inquiry. At one moment my heart dropped when the noble Duke said it would be on the same lines as the last, but later he rather corrected himself. I do not think the Minister of Health should in any way feel that he is going to satisfy your Lordships' House or the country merely by a statistical inquiry. That is only the beginning. I think it only right to withdraw my Motion and wait for this inquiry— I was going to say the end of it but it depends on how long it takes— and then give Notice to bring this matter forward again. I beg leave to withdraw.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn

ANTI-DIPHTHERIA IMMUNIZATION.
LORD MARLEY: I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government to furnish the latest information available as to the effects of anti-diphtheria immunization, specifying the number of cases and the number of deaths of children who have been immunized and of those who have not been immunized and the total number of children in each category.]
LORD SNELL: My Lords, the latest figures available, which do not include children privately immunized outside the arrangements made by local authorities, and do not therefore cover the entire child population, are as follows: The number of children under fifteen immunized under local authority auspices in England and Wales during the three years 1940; 1941 and 1942 was approximately 3,748,000 and it is reasonable to assume that up to the present time about one half of the present child population has been immunized. Among nearly 96,000 children shown in local authority returns as having contracted diphtheria in the same three

931
years, about 7,370 had completed the course of immunization as compared with over 88,000 not so protected. Returns of deaths from diphtheria distinguishing immunized from non-immunized have been obtained from local authorities since January, 1942, only. During the year 1942, of 1,522 children who died from diphtheria, forty-one were immunized and 1,481 were not.

BRIDGWATER GAS BILL.
Reported, with an Amendment.

STONEY STRATFORD GAS ORDER, 1943.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House:
Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

NORTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1 and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned